Case 2402019/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Russell v Sonny Forde Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402019/2023
- Decision date
- 29 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Russell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Manchester Employment Tribunals on 24 January 2023. It was served on SFR Construction and Retail Limited and later on Sonny Forde Limited after information from the claimant clarified that Sonny Forde Limited was the correct respondent.
The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Barker decided that the claim could properly be determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £3,285.00 gross immediately, representing unpaid wages owed between 14 October 2022 and 28 October 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment for unauthorised deductions from wages; the award is stated as gross unpaid wages for 14 October 2022 to 28 October 2022. | Upheld | — | £3,285 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,285
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.