Case 2407974/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Brown v Energybank Systems — 2022
- Case reference
- 2407974/2022
- Decision date
- 14 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Energybank Systems failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Phil Allen therefore determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 23 January 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss T Brown's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay her the gross sum of £2,083. The judgment does not split that sum between different heads of loss.
The accompanying interest notice stated that interest is payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the sum is not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day. It identified 14 December 2022 as the relevant decision day, 15 December 2022 as the calculation day, and the stipulated rate as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge determined the claim under Rule 21 and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,083. | Upheld | — | £2,083 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,083
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the 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.