Case 1808027/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Turner v The Greyhound Pub Tong Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808027/2023
- Decision date
- 6 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Turner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent did not present a response to the claim, and Employment Judge Davies made a Rule 21 determination on the information available. The tribunal recorded that the hearing listed for 7 March 2024 was vacated.
The Claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was held to be well-founded and succeeded. The judgment did not set out any disputed factual findings beyond the sums claimed, but it accepted the Claimant's account of what remained payable for the relevant periods.
The tribunal ordered payment of £1,690.14 for the period 27 August 2023 to 23 September 2023, described in the judgment as net wages because tax and National Insurance had already been paid on that sum. It also ordered £1,080 for the period 24 September 2023 to 11 October 2023, described as gross wages on which the Claimant would be responsible for tax and National Insurance. The total payable was therefore £2,770.14.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The claim was found well-founded. Award comprised £1,690.14 for 27 August 2023 to 23 September 2023, described as net wages, and £1,080 for 24 September 2023 to 11 October 2023, described as gross wages. | Upheld | — | £2,770 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,770
- 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.