Case 2201541/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v United Jewellers Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201541/2020
- Decision date
- 10 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 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.
On the Claimant's ET1, the tribunal held that the Respondent had unlawfully deducted wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that the amount awarded was £16,666.65 in unpaid wages, ordered to be paid net of tax and national insurance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under rule 21 after the Respondent failed to file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance; the tribunal found an unlawful deduction of wages under section 13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £16,667 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,667
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £16,667
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 21 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.