Case 2401852/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss W Longworth v Burger Priest Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2401852/2022
- Decision date
- 20 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss W Longworth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Burger Priest Limited, failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore decided that the claim could properly be determined 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 Miss W Longworth's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay her the gross sum of £673.08, calculated by reference to an annual salary of £25,000, a weekly rate of £480.77, a daily rate of £96.15, and seven days' pay.
The judgment states that the sum is to be paid without deduction, with Miss Longworth responsible for accounting to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due on it. The accompanying notice explains the tribunal's interest procedure under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 and records the relevant decision day as 20 January 2023, but it does not set out any separate interest amount in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined on the basis of the respondent's failure to present a valid response on time under Rule 21. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £673.08. | Upheld | — | £673 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £673
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.