Case 1805575/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Asquith v Liam Twigg and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805575/2022
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss A Asquith
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 14 November 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Maidment decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal declared that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £736.52. It also found that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to reimburse agreed expenses and ordered payment of £30.00.
The hearing listed for 23 January 2023 was vacated. The judgment records no separate remedy breakdown beyond the two ordered sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined on the respondent's failure to present a valid response on time under rule 21. | Upheld | — | £737 |
| Breach of contract | Found because the respondent failed to reimburse agreed expenses. | Upheld | — | £30 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £767
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.