Case 2304545/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K S Ho v Aforce London Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304545/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K S Ho
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 23 August 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages totalling £3,862.00 gross, comprising £2,917.00 for June 2023, £405.00 for 3 days in July 2023, and £540.00 for 4 days pro rata pay. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £3,862.00 in total, with the claimant required to account to HMRC for any sums owed in respect of the payment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 determination after respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Deductions comprised £2,917 (June 2023), £405 (3 days in July 2023) and £540 (4 days pro rata pay). | Upheld | — | £3,862 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,862
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.