Case 2401088/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Bisby v Six One Six Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401088/2024
- Decision date
- 10 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Bisby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge KM Ross determined that the claim could properly be decided under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a gross sum of £1,500.00, representing £2,500.00 in unpaid wages for November 2023 less £1,000.00 already received on account. The claimant was noted to be responsible for any tax liabilities arising on the gross award if tax is not deducted at source.
No award was made for holiday pay, as the claimant had not quantified that claim. The previously listed hearing on 5 August 2024 was cancelled. The judgment also enclosed the standard notice under Article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, identifying 10 July 2024 as the relevant decision day and 8% per annum as the stipulated rate of interest.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 determination following the respondent's failure to present a valid response on time. Award is the gross sum of £1,500.00, calculated as £2,500.00 unpaid wages for November 2023 less £1,000.00 already received on account. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Holiday pay | No award made because the claimant did not quantify the holiday pay claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,500
- 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.