Case 2404933/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Bowles v Kokoa UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2404933/2022
- Decision date
- 14 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Bowles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made on the papers. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages.
The judgment records three separate deductions: £737.44 for March 2022, calculated at £8.38 x 88 hours; £477.36 for April 2022, calculated at £9.18 x 52 hours; and £220.80 for May 2022, calculated at £9.18 x 24 hours. Each deduction was ordered to be repaid to the claimant as a gross sum.
The hearing listed for 14 November 2022 was cancelled. The judgment does not record any other substantive issues, legal tests, or additional remedy beyond the wage orders. The total of the monetary awards is £1,435.60 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for March 2022: £8.38 x 88 hours. | Upheld | — | £737 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for April 2022: £9.18 x 52 hours. | Upheld | — | £477 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for May 2022: £9.18 x 24 hours. | Upheld | — | £221 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,436
- 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.