Case 2408840/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Richmond v Cleartrace Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408840/2022
- Decision date
- 6 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Richmond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the tribunal proceeded to judgment in the claimant's favour without a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that Cleartrace Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Ms S Richmond's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,027, calculated as 92 hours 35 minutes at £11.09 per hour, for hours worked but not paid in August and September 2022.
The separate notice on interest stated that interest is payable on tribunal awards of money, with the relevant decision day as 6 February 2023, the calculation day as 7 February 2023, and the stipulated rate as 8% per annum. It also stated that no interest would be payable if the sum was paid in full within 14 days after the decision was sent, but no separate interest amount was calculated in the judgment text.
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 award was for gross pay for 92 hours 35 minutes at £11.09 per hour for hours worked but not paid in August and September 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,027 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,027
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,027
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.