Case 2403542/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Kerry Tams v Garry Hillman trading as Rumours Hair Design — 2021
- Case reference
- 2403542/2020
- Decision date
- 15 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Kerry Tams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 8 March 2021 in Liverpool, Employment Judge Robinson dealt with Mrs Kerry Tams's complaint against Garry Hillman trading as Rumours Hair Design. The respondent did not attend, and the judgment records that the respondent's response had previously been struck out.
The tribunal declared that the claimant's complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. It found that £1,862.63 had been deducted from the claimant's wages in contravention of section 13 of the Act and ordered the respondent to pay that sum forthwith.
The written record also includes the standard notice that sums payable under an employment tribunal judgment may carry interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if unpaid after the relevant period. No separate interest figure is 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 | The tribunal found the complaint under section 23 ERA 1996 well founded and ordered payment of £1,862.63 for wages deducted in contravention of section 13 ERA 1996. The respondent's response had previously been struck out. | Upheld | — | £1,863 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,863
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- 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.