Case 2414889/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Mcalister v Ara Developments Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414889/2021
- Decision date
- 21 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Mcalister
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. On that basis, Employment Judge Slater determined that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages.
The judgment orders Ara Developments Ltd to pay Miss K Mcalister the gross sum of £1,986.48. It also records that any gross sums for unauthorised deductions from wages are to be paid less the appropriate deductions for tax and national insurance, if any, for which the respondent must account to HMRC.
The accompanying notice on interest states the relevant decision day as 21 March 2022, the calculation day as 22 March 2022, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8%, but the judgment itself does not specify any separate interest award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claimant had suffered an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,986 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,986
- 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.