Case 2409652/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Smith v Singh Logistics Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409652/2022
- Decision date
- 12 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after finding that the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. No oral hearing or contested evidence is recorded in the judgment text provided.
On the merits, the tribunal found that Singh Logistics Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. The judgment sets out the calculation relied on: 2,166 delivered parcels between 22 August 2022 and 15 September 2022 at £0.90 each, producing £1,949.40, plus 1,676 collections between 27 July 2022 and 15 September 2022 at £0.90 each, producing £1,508.40. Those sums totalled £3,457.80, which the respondent was ordered to pay gross.
The judgment also included the standard tribunal notice on interest under Article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that interest may be payable if the award remains unpaid after the relevant decision day. No separate interest figure was assessed in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding 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 £3,457.80. | Upheld | — | £3,458 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,458
- 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.