Case 2401087/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Morris v Henderson Claims Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401087/2025
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Morris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. On that basis, the tribunal proceeded to determine the unlawful deduction from wages claim brought by Mr A Morris against Henderson Claims Limited.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. Gross pay due for July to October 2024 inclusive was calculated at £8,410.24, from which payments on account of £2,250 made by the respondent in August and September 2025 were deducted, leaving a balance of £6,160.24 ordered to be paid to the claimant as a gross sum.
The judgment also cancelled the previously listed hearing on 16 June 2025. A separate notice was issued under Article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, identifying 13 June 2025 as the relevant decision day, 14 June 2025 as the calculation day, and 8% per annum as the stipulated rate of interest.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 22 determination after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Gross pay due July to October 2024 of £8,410.24 less £2,250 paid on account in August and September 2025 leaves £6,160.24. | Upheld | — | £6,160 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,160
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, Article 12
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.