Case 1805007/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Taylor v The Education Learning Specialist Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805007/2022
- Decision date
- 23 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 21 September 2022 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and the hearing listed for 30 November 2022 was vacated.
The tribunal declared that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. On the material before it, including an extract from the contract of employment and a payslip, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was entitled to be paid £570 per month on a pro-rated salary of £18,000 per annum and that her working hours were 14.25 hours per week on a flexible basis.
The claimant said she was owed £570 in unpaid wages and 12 hours' overtime, although she was unsure of the overtime amount. Using the contractual figures, the tribunal calculated a gross hourly rate of £9.23 and awarded £110.76 for overtime pay. The total gross sum ordered to be paid was £680.76.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £680.76, comprising £570 unpaid wages and £110.76 for overtime. | Upheld | — | £681 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £681
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.