Case 2300134/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R. Owolabi v Jar Site Solutions Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300134/2022
- Decision date
- 15 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R. Owolabi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R. Owolabi brought a complaint of unlawful deduction from wages against JAR Site Solutions Limited. The hearing took place at London South via CVP on 15 September 2022 before Employment Judge T.R. Smith, and the respondent did not attend.
The tribunal first held that, having regard to section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the complaint was presented within the time limit in section 23 of that Act. It then found the unlawful deduction from wages complaint to be well-founded and declared accordingly.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £235.20 forthwith. The decision records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the complaint was presented within time under section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found the unlawful deduction from wages complaint well-founded. The respondent did not attend the hearing. | Upheld | — | £235 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £235
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 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.