Case 2404569/2025 · Employment Tribunal
J C Onyeji v Care Cross Nursing and Staffing — 2025
- Case reference
- 2404569/2025
- Decision date
- 21 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J C Onyeji
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 21 August 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Phil Allen determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing. The hearing listed for 25 February 2026 was cancelled.
The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages to be well-founded. It held that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 24 May 2025 to 23 June 2025.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £848.50, being the gross sum deducted, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance. A standard notice under Article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 was attached, identifying 20 February 2026 as the relevant decision day and 8% per annum as the stipulated rate of interest.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 22 determination after respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Award is the gross sum deducted for the period 24 May 2025 to 23 June 2025; claimant responsible for tax/NI. | Upheld | — | £849 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £849
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.