Case 2409006/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Moore v Tim Arnold — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409006/2023
- Decision date
- 29 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Moore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the respondent having failed to present a valid response on time. The judge concluded that a determination could properly be made on the claim on that basis.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £2,832.77. That sum was calculated as £2,461.52 in unpaid salary (4 weeks at £615.38 per week) and £371.25 in unpaid commission, both covering the period 3 April 2023 to 1 May 2023.
The judgment records that the claimant will be responsible for any tax liabilities arising out of the gross award if tax is not deducted at source. A separate notice was issued regarding interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with the relevant decision day given as 29 July 2024 and the stipulated rate of interest at 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 determination following the respondent's failure to present a valid response on time. Award comprises unpaid salary of £2,461.52 (4 weeks at £615.38) and unpaid commission of £371.25 for the period 3/4/23 to 1/5/23. | Upheld | — | £2,833 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,833
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.