Case 2415163/2021 · Employment Tribunal
1. Miss O Robinson 2. Mr M Prior v Tube Liverpool Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415163/2021
- Decision date
- 20 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Miss O Robinson 2. Mr M Prior
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not record any contested hearing or findings beyond the default determination.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss O Robinson's wages and ordered payment of £309.32 gross. It also found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr M Prior's wages and ordered payment of £465.11 gross. The combined monetary award recorded in the judgment is £774.43 gross.
The notice on interest states the standard position under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, including the relevant decision day of 20 May 2022 and the calculation day of 21 May 2022, but the judgment itself does not quantify any interest sum. The hearing listed for 24 August 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant Miss O Robinson. Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £309.32 gross. | Upheld | — | £309 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant Mr M Prior. Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £465.11 gross. | Upheld | — | £465 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £774
- 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.