Case 2402804/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Chatterley v Adam Brown t/a Fastrack Recruitment Worldwide — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402804/2021
- Decision date
- 19 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Chatterley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was entered under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a valid response within the prescribed time limit. On that basis, Employment Judge Holmes determined the case on the papers and found two statutory breaches proved on the face of the claim and supporting material.
First, the tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £418.56 gross, subject to any appropriate tax and national insurance deductions. Second, the tribunal found that the respondent had not complied with section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by providing a written statement of particulars of employment.
For that second breach, the tribunal applied section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 and made an additional award of four weeks' net pay, calculated at £348.00 per week, totalling £1,392.00. The judgment therefore required payment of £1,810.56 in total, made up of the wage deduction award and the statutory additional award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £418.56, subject to tax and national insurance deductions if applicable. | Upheld | — | £419 |
| Other | The tribunal found non-compliance with section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in that no written statement of particulars of employment had been provided, and made an additional award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 of four weeks' net pay at £348 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,392 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,811
- across all upheld claims
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.