Case 2408593/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Rhodes v Apt Security Shutters Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408593/2022
- Decision date
- 24 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Rhodes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge decided the claim could properly be determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the tribunal therefore dealt with the claim on the papers.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,727.00, described as the amount deducted without authorisation from the payment made in September 2022.
The judgment was dated 23 January 2023 and sent to the parties on 24 January 2023. A separate notice recorded that interest would be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the sum was not paid within 14 days, with the stipulated rate stated as 8% per annum, but no specific interest figure was set out in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that £1,727.00 was deducted without authorisation from the claimant's September 2022 wages. | Upheld | — | £1,727 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,727
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.