Case 2406718/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Dutton v TPHLIVE Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406718/2022
- Decision date
- 20 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Dutton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. It therefore made a determination on the papers rather than listing the matter for the hearing that had been set for 18 January 2023.
It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. The judgment records that the amount due was calculated as 22 hours at £9.50 per hour, producing a gross award of £209.
The judgment also includes the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that interest may become payable if the award is not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day of 20 January 2023. No separate interest sum was quantified in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £209, calculated as 22 hours at £9.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £209 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £209
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, article 12
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.