Case 2406109/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Aekula v Rb Logistic Solutions Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406109/2022
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Aekula
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal decided the case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the Employment Judge made a determination of the claim without a response from the respondent.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr S Aekula's wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,594.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's breach of contract claim in relation to fuel costs. It found that the respondent had breached the claimant's contract on that issue and ordered damages of £225.29. The judgment also contains an interest notice stating that interest may be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with the relevant decision day recorded as 5 December 2022 and the calculation day as 6 December 2022, but no separate interest amount is specified in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal proceeded under rule 21 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,594. | Upheld | — | £1,594 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract in respect of fuel costs and ordered damages of £225.29. | Upheld | — | £225 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,819
- 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.