Case 2407234/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hewitt v Lee James Millward — 2022
- Case reference
- 2407234/2021
- Decision date
- 12 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hewitt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge proceeded to determine the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On the face of the judgment, the tribunal found that Lee James Millward had made unauthorised deductions from Mr J Hewitt's wages.
The judgment identifies two separate deductions. First, the respondent was ordered to pay £1,255.68 gross, calculated as 144 hours at £8.72 per hour. Second, the respondent was ordered to pay £178.00 gross in respect of delivery expenses, calculated as 178 at £1 each. The tribunal ordered payment of £1,433.68 in total within 14 days of the judgment. The attached notice explains the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 and states the relevant judgment day, calculation day, and stipulated rate of interest, but no separate interest sum is quantified in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found two unauthorised deductions: £1,255.68 for 144 hours' wages at £8.72 per hour, and £178.00 for delivery expenses at £1 per item/unit, making £1,433.68 in total. | Upheld | — | £1,434 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,434
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.