Case 2201090/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Swift Rapid Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201090/2020
- Decision date
- 6 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Adkin therefore considered the claim form and 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 also exercised its discretion under rule 34 to substitute Swift Rapid Limited for the name Immediate Solutions given in the ET1. On the substance of the claim, the tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully deducted the claimant's wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The only monetary award recorded was £714.00 for unpaid wages, to be paid net of tax and national insurance. No other remedy components were identified 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 claim under rule 21 after the respondent failed to file an ET3. It found an unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 ERA 1996 and ordered payment of £714.00 unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £714 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £714
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 21 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 34 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.