Case 2407933/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Davies v Tagi Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407933/2022
- Decision date
- 23 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge dealt with the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. The judgment states that a determination could properly be made on that basis.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr P Davies's wages.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,680.00. The judgment records the calculation as 21 days x 8 hours x £10 per hour for July, August and September 2022.
A separate notice on interest accompanied the judgment and stated the relevant decision day, calculation day, and stipulated rate of interest, but the judgment text does not quantify any interest award. No other remedy is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,680.00, calculated as 21 days x 8 hours x £10 per hour for July, August and September 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,680 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,680
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.