Case 2407899/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Rabheru v Freedom Sportsline Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2407899/2022
- Decision date
- 2 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Rabheru
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe employment judge determined 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 hearing listed for 2 February 2023 was cancelled as a result.
The tribunal found that Freedom Sportsline Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss Rabheru's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £418.47, calculated as 87 hours at £4.81, being the minimum wage for a worker aged between 16 and 17.
The written notice also recorded the interest provisions under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It stated that the relevant decision day was 2 December 2022, the calculation day was 3 December 2022, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum if the award remained unpaid after the relevant period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum calculated as 87 hours at £4.81. | Upheld | — | £418 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £418
- 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.