Case 2500064/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Stanley v Cyclone (Newcastle) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500064/2022
- Decision date
- 18 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge AE Pitt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Stanley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 15 January 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge therefore determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the substance, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in the amount of £245.03 gross, and had also made an unauthorised deduction in relation to outstanding holiday pay in the amount of £507.82 gross.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed, unreasonably, to comply with section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It applied a 25% uplift of £188.03 to the award, resulting in a total amount payable of £941.06.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £245.03 gross. | Upheld | — | £245 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction in relation to outstanding holiday pay and ordered payment of £507.82 gross. | Upheld | — | £508 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £941
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £753
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
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.