Case 2500520/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Watson v Ryan Smith trading as Smiths — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500520/2022
- Decision date
- 15 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Watson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Watson, brought a claim for unauthorised deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against Ryan Smith trading as Smiths. The respondent filed an ET3 stating that it was not defending the claim, although the tribunal noted some uncertainty about the amounts paid and the amount still owing.
The tribunal entered judgment on liability under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, relying on the information provided by both parties. It found that the claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction of wages was well-founded.
The judgment did not determine remedy. It stated that remedy would be decided at the hearing listed for 6 July 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim well-founded under section 13 ERA 1996. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for hearing on 6 July 2022; the reasons note some uncertainty about amounts paid and the amount still owing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.