Case 2408115/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Bleasdale v Essential Transport And Logistics Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408115/2022
- Decision date
- 16 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Bleasdale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the tribunal could properly make a determination on that basis without a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that Essential Transport & Logistics Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Ms J Bleasdale's wages in respect of unpaid commission. The amount identified in the judgment was £1,855.25, comprising £200.00 for March 2022, £763.50 for June 2022, and £891.75 for July 2022.
The respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £1,855.25 within 14 days of the date of judgment. The separate notice on interest states that interest would only become payable if the award remained unpaid after the relevant decision day, with interest calculated at 8% per annum under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, article 12.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for unpaid commission and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,855.25, made up of £200.00 for March 2022, £763.50 for June 2022, and £891.75 for July 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,855 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,855
- 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.