Case 2408701/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C McGilloway v Worktop Warehouse (NW) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408701/2022
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C McGilloway
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The employment judge decided that a determination could properly be made on the papers. No other claims are identified in the judgment, and the only substantive issue determined was whether wages had been unlawfully deducted.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,081, identified as pay owed for February, March, April, May and July 2022. The judgment does not split the award into separate heads of loss beyond that wage sum.
The written record also included the standard interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It stated that the relevant decision day was 26 June 2023, the calculation day was 27 June 2023, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum, but no separate interest figure was quantified in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,081, described as pay owed for February, March, April, May and July 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,081 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,081
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the 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.
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.