Case 2200247/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Reynolds Technological Inquiries Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200247/2020
- Decision date
- 7 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent failed to file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Having considered the ET1, Employment Judge Adkin decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The Tribunal held that the Respondent had unlawfully deducted the claimant's wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that the Respondent did not dispute the amounts owing.
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay £22,601.32. The reasons state that this sum represented four months' net monthly pay.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal determined the claim under rule 21 after the Respondent failed to file an ET3. The judgment states that the Respondent unlawfully deducted wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Respondent did not dispute the amounts owing, and the sum awarded represented four months' net monthly pay. | Upheld | — | £22,601 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,601
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.