Case 2410067/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Wilde v Mercer Projects Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410067/2019
- Decision date
- 21 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Wilde
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mr P Wilde against Mercer Projects Ltd. The tribunal found 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 £816.00.
The judgment does not give further factual detail about the deduction or set out a disputed liability analysis, because the matter was determined on the papers as a Rule 21 judgment. The listed hearing on 31 October 2019 was cancelled.
An attached notice explained the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 and stated that interest may accrue if sums remain unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, with the stipulated rate shown as 8%. The judgment itself does not state any separate quantified interest award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered under Rule 21. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £816.00. | Upheld | — | £816 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £816
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.