Case 2300627/2023 · Employment Tribunal
James Gardiner v South East Water — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300627/2023
- Decision date
- 3 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
James Gardiner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote hearing before Employment Judge B Smith sitting alone in London South on 3 August 2023. The tribunal extended the time for the respondent to file its response until 26 June 2023 and accepted the response, or alternatively said no such extension was necessary.
The only substantive claim recorded in the written judgment was a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal found that claim was not well-founded and dismissed it.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award was made in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written record states only that the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was not well-founded and was dismissed. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent's time for filing a response was extended to 26 June 2023 and the response was accepted, or alternatively that no extension was necessary. No further written reasons were provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.