Case 2500034/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Duncan v Heritage Tradesmen Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500034/2021
- Decision date
- 3 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Duncan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr K Duncan was employed by Heritage Tradesmen Ltd from 1 June 2019 until 9 October 2020. On 8 January 2021 he presented a claim alleging unauthorised deduction of wages under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 in the sum of £4,500. The claim was duly served, but the respondent did not present a response.
The claimant said his pay was withheld while he was placed on furlough, even though the employer had claimed furlough pay from the government. He said that when he asked for his pay he was sworn at and told that he was not to be paid, and that a significant sum remained outstanding at the end of his employment. On the available material, the Employment Judge was satisfied that there was enough to determine liability, and the judgment held that the complaint of unlawful deductions was well founded and succeeded. The tribunal said more information was required before remedy could be decided, and converted the listed hearing on 22 March 2021 into a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim brought under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 for £4,500. The respondent did not present a response. Liability was determined on the material available under Rule 21, and remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.