Case 2206323/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Tuson v PGD Food Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206323/2021
- Decision date
- 29 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Connolly Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Tuson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response form and did not attend the hearing. Employment Judge S Connolly proceeded under rule 21 after considering the ET1 and the background material, and determined the claim in the respondent's absence at the London Central CVP hearing on 29 November 2021.
The tribunal found that PGD Food Services Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr R Tuson's wages for the period 1 July 2021 to 11 August 2021. The judgment specifies that this covered salary for the period worked from 1 July 2021 to 2 August 2021 inclusive, and pay for 7 days' annual leave taken from 3 August 2021 to 11 August 2021 inclusive.
The respondent was ordered to pay Mr Tuson the gross sum of £2,388, described as the amount unlawfully deducted. The tribunal recorded that the respondent was entitled to make deductions for income tax and national insurance as required by law.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages covering the period 1 July 2021 to 11 August 2021, including salary for 1 July 2021 to 2 August 2021 and 7 days' annual leave from 3 August 2021 to 11 August 2021. | Upheld | — | £2,388 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,388
- 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.