Case 2407825/2024 · Employment Tribunal
R Badley Smith v Kelly’s Bar Management Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407825/2024
- Decision date
- 4 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
R Badley Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, R Badley Smith, brought a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against Kelly’s Bar Management Ltd. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found the complaint well-founded. It held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £925 net.
The written judgment states that the respondent must pay £925 in total within 14 days of the date of the judgment. The accompanying notice on interest says no interest is payable if the sum is paid in full within 14 days after the written record of the decision was sent; otherwise interest accrues in accordance with the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 at the stipulated rate of 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the judge proceeded under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. | Upheld | — | £925 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £925
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.