Case 2303168/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Walsh v Chisholm Hunter Limited Heard by video — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303168/2022
- Decision date
- 26 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Walsh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Walsh brought a claim for unlawful deduction of wages against Chisholm Hunter Limited. The case was heard by video on 26 January 2023 before Employment Judge Corrigan, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Ms K McCulloch, Head of HR.
The tribunal held that the claimant's unlawful deduction of wages claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasoning in detail.
The decision notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states only that the claim was not well-founded and dismissed. The extracted text does not record the tribunal's reasoning; it notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.