Case 2200138/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v R Makinde — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200138/2020
- Decision date
- 11 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Adkin sat alone and determined part of the claim without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The tribunal held that the respondent unlawfully deducted the claimant's wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In the reasons, the judge said the tribunal accepted the details of unpaid wages for the period 16 December 2019 to 29 December 2019 as provided in the claimant's email of 7 May 2020. The claimant had also sought an additional 30% for inconvenience, but the tribunal said section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not give it a discretionary power to award sums for inconvenience.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £500.00. No separate award for inconvenience, interest, or any other component was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal determined the unlawful deduction from wages claim under rule 21 because the respondent did not file an ET3. It accepted the unpaid wages details for 16 December 2019 to 29 December 2019 from the claimant's email of 7 May 2020. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 21 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.