Case 2307049/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Corrigan v Sabio Recruitment Ltd (Company No 14556744) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2307049/2023
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Corrigan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunal on 9 December 2023. The respondent, Sabio Recruitment Limited, failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined that a decision 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 and ordered the respondent to pay £9,958.57 gross, comprising £9,739.77 in wages and £218.80 in sick pay.
The judgment recorded that if the claimant sought additional sums by way of unlawful deductions, or compensation for financial loss attributable to the deductions, those further remedies would be determined at a remedy hearing listed for 11 December 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment issued because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Award comprises £9,739.77 wages and £218.80 sick pay (gross). A remedy hearing was listed for 11 December 2024 to determine any further sums the claimant may seek. | Upheld | — | £9,959 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment issued because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Award comprises £9,739.77 wages and £218.80 sick pay (gross). A remedy hearing was listed for 11 December 2024 to determine any further sums the claimant may seek. | Upheld | — | £9,959 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,959
- 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.