Case 2402189/2022 · Employment Tribunal
A Wilkinson v Liverpool Road Leisure Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402189/2022
- Decision date
- 5 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Wilkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge determined the case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. The written judgment therefore records a decision on the claim without a contested hearing and cancels the hearing listed for 19 December 2022.
The tribunal found that Liverpool Road Leisure Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from A Wilkinson's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £188.00 and recorded that the respondent is responsible for paying any tax deductible to HMRC.
The accompanying interest notice states that sums payable under the judgment will carry interest if not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, with the calculation day and stipulated rate set out in the notice. No separate interest sum is quantified in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal decided the claim under rule 21 and found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £188 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £188
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.