Case 2401795/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K McCann v Dockside Bar Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401795/2020
- Decision date
- 26 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K McCann
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been filed by Dockside Bar Limited. The tribunal therefore determined the claim on the material before it without any live response from the respondent.
The claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was found to be well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal calculated the unpaid wages as 82.5 hours at £7.00 per hour, amounting to £577.50, and 48.85 hours at £8.21 per hour, amounting to £401.05. The total wages due were £978.55, and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay that gross sum to the claimant, subject to any tax and national insurance due.
The tribunal refused a preparation time order. It recorded that such an order requires vexatious, abusive, disruptive or otherwise unreasonable conduct under rule 76(1)(a) of the 2013 Rules, and that the respondent’s failure to respond was not enough to meet that threshold. It also stated that it had no power to award further compensation, including for damage to mental health, in respect of an unlawful deductions from wages claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully deducted wages for 82.5 hours at £7.00 per hour and 48.85 hours at £8.21 per hour, totalling £978.55 gross. | Upheld | — | £979 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £979
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 76(1)(a) 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.