Case 2408075/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Vine v Alpha-teknik Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408075/2022
- Decision date
- 21 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Vine
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 failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the tribunal made a determination on the papers.
The tribunal found that Alpha-teknik Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr M Vine's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £152.00, calculated as £19.00 for 8 hours.
The written record also included the standard notice about interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It stated that no interest would be payable if the sum was paid in full within 14 days after the relevant decision day, and that the relevant decision day was 21 December 2022.
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. | Upheld | — | £152 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £152
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.