Case 2208515/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Arloid Automation Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2208515/2023
- Decision date
- 31 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The tribunal therefore considered the ET1 and decided under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing.
On that basis, Employment Judge E Burns found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant. The judgment identifies the unpaid wages as £10,300.42 for Richard Anyaneto.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £10,300.42 gross to the claimant, with tax and national insurance deductions to be accounted for by the respondent to HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay outstanding wages of £10,300.42 to the claimant. The order states that the sum is payable gross, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £10,300 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,300
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.