Case 2400222/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Cameron Chambers v Michael Colebrook — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400222/2022
- Decision date
- 6 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wheat REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Cameron Chambers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Wheat at Manchester via CVP on 5 October 2022. The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The Tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Tribunal found that the claimant's claim succeeded. It held that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,139.60 net.
The Tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment and ordered payment of £978.40 net. The total amount ordered to be paid to the claimant was £2,118.00 net.
The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The notice of interest explains that interest may be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the award remains unpaid after the relevant decision day.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £1,139.60. | Upheld | — | £1,140 |
| Other | The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment and ordered payment of the net sum of £978.40. | Upheld | — | £978 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,118
- across all upheld claims
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.