Case 2415300/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Houghton v Danielle Petterson and Bob t/a Subway Fresh n Healthy — 2023
- Case reference
- 2415300/2021
- Decision date
- 13 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Houghton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, Employment Judge Cookson made a determination on the papers without a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered Danielle Petterson and Bob t/a Subway Fresh n Healthy to pay Miss R Houghton the gross sum of £624.
The judgment was accompanied by the standard interest notice. It stated that, if the sum remained unpaid more than 14 days after the judgment was sent, interest would accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 at the stipulated rate of 8%, with the relevant decision day recorded as 12 April 2023 and the calculation day as 13 April 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The claim was determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Upheld | — | £624 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £624
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the 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.