Case 2409622/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Barber v The Protein Partners Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409622/2022
- Decision date
- 23 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Barber
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge decided the claim could properly be determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the merits, the tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay Mr S Barber the gross sum of £1,319.08.
The judgment records the calculation used to reach that figure: 26 days at £146.58 per day produced £3,811.08, from which £2,492 already received was deducted. The separate interest notice states that interest would be payable if the sum was not paid in full within 14 days after the written record was sent to the parties, but no interest amount is specified in the judgment text provided.
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 the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £1,319.08 gross, calculated as 26 days x £146.58 per day = £3,811.08 less £2,492 already received. | Upheld | — | £1,319 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,319
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21, 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.