Case 2411164/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Cookson Mr W Cook v Templar Payments Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2411164/2021
- Decision date
- 10 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Cookson Mr W Cook
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response to either claim. On the material before Employment Judge Slater, the tribunal found that both claims of unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were well founded.
For Kieran Cookson, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £2,083.00 gross. For William Cook, the tribunal made the same finding and ordered payment of £6,286.46 gross. The judgment directed that the respondent pay the gross sums, less any appropriate deductions for tax and national insurance that it must account for to HMRC.
The hearings listed for 28 January 2022 in respect of Mr W Cook and 28 February 2022 in respect of Mr K Cookson were cancelled. The judgment was sent to the parties on 10 December 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Kieran Cookson: tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £2,083.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,083 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | William Cook: tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £6,286.46 gross. | Upheld | — | £6,286 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,369
- 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.