Case 2408893/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Maklasins v Templar Payments Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408893/2021
- Decision date
- 6 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Maklasins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages by failing to pay him for 5 days worked in April 2021, 21 days worked in May 2021, 18 days worked in June 2021, and 29 hours of overtime worked in May 2021.
The tribunal recorded that the gross sums due were £4,230.00 for the days worked and £398.33 for the overtime, which translated to net sums of £3,496.68 and £329.23 respectively. The total net deductions were therefore £3,825.91. The claimant had already been paid £750, which was credited against the award.
The respondent was ordered to pay £3,075.91 net to the claimant. The judgment also stated that no deductions for tax or national insurance should be made from that sum, and that the respondent must account to HMRC for tax and national insurance due on the gross sums. The attached interest notice recorded the relevant judgment day as 6 June 2022, the calculation day as 7 June 2022, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8%.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages for unpaid days worked in April, May and June 2021 and 29 hours of overtime in May 2021. The award was reduced by £750 already paid. | Upheld | — | £3,076 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,076
- across all upheld claims
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.