Case 2208213/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Gordon v Bryanston Logistics — 2022
- Case reference
- 2208213/2022
- Decision date
- 14 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- London Centra
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Gordon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the respondent did not appear and was not represented, and that no response on the prescribed form had been entered. Liability judgment was therefore entered in default under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The claim succeeded as an unlawful deduction from wages claim. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,955.56 gross for wages unpaid between 2 and 22 October 2022. The judgment broke that sum down as £844.13 for the week commencing 2 October 2022, £775.13 for the week commencing 9 October 2022, and £336.30 for the week commencing 16 October 2022.
In addition, the tribunal ordered £240 under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to financial loss sustained by the claimant and attributable to the unlawful deductions. The judgment stated that the claimant was responsible for accounting to HMRC for tax on the wage payment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Liability was entered in default under Rule 21 because no response on the prescribed form was filed and no ET3 was presented. The tribunal ordered £1,955.56 gross for unpaid wages and a further £240 under s.24(2) ERA 1996 for financial loss attributable to the unlawful deductions. | Upheld | — | £2,196 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,196
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21, Schedule 1, Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- s.24(2) 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.