Case 2305747/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Hinkley v Morris & Turner LLP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305747/2021
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Hinkley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 16 December 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge said 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 for the period 26 March 2020 to 31 July 2022. It ordered the respondent to pay £9,613.93 gross in respect of those deductions.
The tribunal also awarded a 25% ACAS uplift of £2,403.48 gross, stating that this was for failure to respond to or follow grievance procedures in its entirety, specifically failure to comply with sections 33 to 45 of the ACAS Code of Practice. The total sum payable was £12,017.41.
The judgment records that the claimant is responsible for any amounts owed to HMRC in respect of tax or national insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 26 March 2020 to 31 July 2022, awarded £9,613.93 gross, and added a 25% ACAS uplift of £2,403.48 gross, making £12,017.41 in total. | Upheld | — | £12,017 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,017
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,403
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.