Case 2301673/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Green v BAU Firms Ltd t/a Subway — 2026
- Case reference
- 2301673/2025
- Decision date
- 18 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Green
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the London South Employment Tribunal on 15 February 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time and failed to send its application for an extension of time to the claimant, in breach of Tribunal Orders. The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim, or part of it, under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay the claimant £166.40 gross. The total sum payable under the judgment is £166.40. The claimant must account to HMRC for any sums owed by her in respect of any payment received pursuant to this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 22 determination made after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time and failed to send its application for an extension of time to the claimant, in breach of Tribunal Orders. | Upheld | — | £166 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £166
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.