Case 2403366/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A F Onuh v JC 24/7 Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403366/2024
- Decision date
- 18 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A F Onuh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response, so the tribunal determined the claim on the information before the Employment Judge under Rule 21. The claimant, Mr A F Onuh, brought a claim against JC 24/7 Services Limited for unlawful deduction from wages under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant for 136 hours worked in January 2024 and 62 hours worked in February 2024. The hourly rate identified in the judgment was £10.42. On that basis, the claim for unlawful deduction from wages was held to be well founded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £2,063.16. A separate notice on interest stated that the relevant decision day was 18 October 2024, the calculation day was 19 October 2024, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum, but no separate interest figure was set out in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the respondent did not present a response, and the tribunal found the claim well founded under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,063 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,063
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.