Case 2401420/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Eggerton v Vectra Pub Co Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401420/2020
- Decision date
- 27 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Eggerton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent did not present a response. On the information before the Judge, Employment Judge Parkin found that Vectra Pub Co Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss M Eggerton's wages.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £254.51. No separate breakdown of remedy was given beyond that figure.
The judgment also recorded that the hearing listed for 3 June 2020 was cancelled. A notice attached to the judgment explained the statutory interest position under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with the relevant decision day stated as 27 May 2020, the calculation day as 28 May 2020, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8%, but no separate interest sum was set out in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the respondent did not present a response, and on the information before the Judge the tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £255 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £255
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.