Case 2408928/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Curran v The Blindz Store Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408928/2022
- Decision date
- 16 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Curran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and determined the claim on the papers. The hearing listed for 28 February 2023 was cancelled.
On the merits, the tribunal upheld Mr J Curran's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £817 gross, calculated as 86 hours at £9.50 per hour. It also upheld the claim for failure to pay accrued annual leave entitlement of 1 day and ordered payment of £76 gross, calculated as 8 hours at £9.50 per hour.
The written notice also records the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, Article 12, including that the relevant decision day was 16 February 2023, the calculation day was 17 February 2023, and the stipulated interest rate was 8% per annum. No separate quantified interest figure is stated in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £817, calculated as 86 hours x £9.50. | Upheld | — | £817 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued annual leave entitlement of 1 day and ordered payment of the gross sum of £76, calculated as 8 hours x £9.50. | Upheld | — | £76 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £893
- 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.