Case 2201765/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Timeplan Education Group Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201765/2020
- Decision date
- 21 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, on the basis of the claim form, 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’s judgment was that the Respondent unlawfully deducted the Claimant’s wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that the claim was for unpaid wages only and does not identify any separate heads of loss or additional statutory claims.
By way of compensation, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £140.00 in unpaid wages, to be paid net of tax and national insurance. The judgment is dated 14 July 2020 and was sent to the parties on 21 July 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal made a rule 21 judgment without a hearing after the Respondent failed to file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. It held that the Respondent had unlawfully deducted wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of £140.00 unpaid wages, net of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £140 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £140
- 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.