Case 2408634/2022 · Employment Tribunal
P Emojevu v KC Seven Holdings Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408634/2022
- Decision date
- 16 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
P Emojevu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the case 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 Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made without a hearing on the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered KC Seven Holdings Ltd to pay the claimant the gross sum of £4,423.00, described as £442.30 gross per week for 10 weeks covering 25 July 2022 to 30 September 2022.
The decision also included the standard interest notice. It states that interest is payable on awards of money unless the sum is paid in full within 14 days after the written record of the decision was sent to the parties, with the relevant decision day given as 16 February 2023 and the stipulated interest rate stated as 8% per annum. No separate quantified interest figure is given in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal made the determination 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 £4,423.00, calculated as £442.30 gross per week for 10 weeks from 25 July 2022 to 30 September 2022. | Upheld | — | £4,423 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,423
- 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.