Case 2402743/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Lee v SHQ Holdings Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402743/2022
- Decision date
- 15 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Lee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, Employment Judge Mark Butler determined the claim without a response from the respondent.
The judgment found that SHQ Holdings Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr D Lee's wages. The tribunal ordered payment of £3,409.75 for net wages said to relate to February and March, together with £244.53 for unpaid contributions to the pension scheme.
The attached notice on interest recorded that sums payable under the judgment would carry interest if not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day. It identified 14 April 2023 as the relevant decision day, 15 April 2023 as the calculation day, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8%.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages. The order was for £3,409.75 in net wages for February and March plus £244.53 for unpaid pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £3,654 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,654
- 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.