Case 2409885/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Brown v I-Guard Security Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409885/2022
- Decision date
- 23 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal dealt with the claim under rule 21 after I-Guard Security Ltd failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made on the papers, and the hearing listed for 22 February 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr R Brown's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £794, broken down as £354 for the week ending 18/09/22, £346.50 for the week ending 25/09/22, and £93.50 for the week ending 12/06/22.
The judgment also included the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that interest would be payable if the award was not paid within 14 days of the written record being sent, with the stipulated rate given as 8% per annum. No separate quantified interest award appears in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £794, made up of £354 for week ending 18/09/22, £346.50 for week ending 25/09/22, and £93.50 for the week ending 12/06/22. | Upheld | — | £794 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £794
- 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.