Case 2403541/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gawthorpe v Trade Angels CIC trading as Happy Lives UK — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403541/2022
- Decision date
- 23 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Gawthorpe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal made a Rule 21 judgment because Trade Angels CIC trading as Happy Lives UK failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Phil Allen therefore decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim on the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr D Gawthorpe's wages and ordered the respondent to pay him the gross sum of £459.20. The judgment does not split the award into separate heads of loss; it records a single wage deduction award.
A separate notice explained the tribunal's interest arrangements under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It stated that the relevant decision day was 23 December 2022, the calculation day was 24 December 2022, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum if the award remained unpaid after the 14-day period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the tribunal determined the claim without a response. | Upheld | — | £459 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £459
- 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.