Case 2407270/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Smith v Lee James Millward — 2022
- Case reference
- 2407270/2021
- Decision date
- 12 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal dealt with the claim without a hearing on the merits.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It found deductions of £2,450.32 gross, calculated as 281 hours at £8.72 per hour, together with £381.65 gross for delivery expenses calculated at 449 x £0.85, and £106 gross for delivery expenses calculated at 106 x £1.00.
The total sum payable under the judgment was £2,937.97, to be paid within fourteen days of the judgment. The accompanying notice explained that if the sum remained unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, interest would accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 at the stipulated rate stated in the notice, which was 8% for this case.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found three sets of unauthorised deductions: £2,450.32 gross for 281 hours x £8.72, £381.65 gross for delivery expenses at 449 x £0.85, and £106 gross for delivery expenses at 106 x £1.00. Total awarded: £2,937.97. | Upheld | — | £2,938 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,938
- 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.