Case 2406064/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Brade v Virosafe Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406064/2022
- Decision date
- 27 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Brade
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the material before the tribunal, without the listed hearing proceeding. The only substantive claim recorded in the judgment was for unauthorised deduction from wages.
The tribunal upheld that claim and ordered Virosafe Limited to pay Miss K Brade the gross sum of £2,113.00. The judgment breaks that figure down as £988.00 for May 2022, £912.00 for June 2022 and £213.00 for July 2022. It also states that the sum is gross and that the claimant must account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due on it.
The notice on interest records that the relevant decision day was 27 October 2022, the calculation day was 28 October 2022, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum. The hearing listed for 24 November 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,113.00, made up of £988.00 for May 2022, £912.00 for June 2022 and £213.00 for July 2022. The judgment states that this is a gross sum and the claimant must account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due. | Upheld | — | £2,113 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,113
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- The 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.