Case 2409162/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Atkinson v Miss Stacey Finney — 2022
- Case reference
- 2409162/2021
- Decision date
- 29 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Atkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Miss Stacey Finney, did not present a response on time. The Employment Judge therefore decided that the claim could properly be determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £142 to Miss G Atkinson. The judgment does not break the award down into separate components beyond that sum.
The accompanying interest notice stated that interest would be payable on unpaid tribunal awards under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the sum was not paid within 14 days after the written record was sent to the parties. It identified 29 September 2022 as the relevant decision day, 30 September 2022 as the calculation day, and 8% per annum as the stipulated rate of interest.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent did not present a response on time. The Employment Judge made a rule 21 determination and found an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £142 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £142
- 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.