Case 2409873/2022 · Employment Tribunal
J Bell v Chantelle Bradd t/a The Sass Network — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409873/2022
- Decision date
- 15 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the North West region of the Employment Tribunals on 13 December 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge determined that a decision could properly be made of part of the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,079.84.
An attached notice explained the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 and stated that interest would accrue if the sum remained unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, but the judgment itself did not quantify any separate interest award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment was entered under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,079.84. | Upheld | — | £1,080 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,080
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.