Case 2406485/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Gasper v Autumn Glades CIC — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406485/2022
- Decision date
- 14 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Gasper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal dealt with the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made on the claim on that basis.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay Mrs C Gasper the gross sum of £2,812.00, calculated as 38 shifts multiplied by 8 hours per shift at £9.25 per hour, covering February to April 2022.
A separate notice on interest explained that interest would be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the sum was not paid within 14 days after the written record of the decision was sent to the parties. The notice identified 14 December 2022 as the relevant decision day and 15 December 2022 as the calculation day, with a stipulated rate of 8% per annum, but no quantified interest figure was included in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,812.00 for February to April 2022, calculated as 38 shifts x 8 hours x £9.25 per hour. | Upheld | — | £2,812 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,812
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Article 12 of 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.