Case 2500540/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Stevanovic v Craig Robinson — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500540/2022
- Decision date
- 15 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Stevanovic
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Stevanovic presented a claim on 29 April 2022 alleging unlawful deduction of wages against Craig Robinson, whom he identified as his employer. The proceedings were served but no response was presented by the respondent. The tribunal therefore determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the available material.
The tribunal found that, as at termination of employment, the claimant had not been paid gross salary of £562.72 for 51.16 hours of work at £11 an hour in the week commencing 7 March 2022. It also found that Mr Robinson had agreed to pay the wages by 6 April 2022 but did not do so. On that basis, the tribunal was satisfied that the wages were properly payable on termination and had not been paid.
The unlawful deduction of wages claim under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 therefore succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £562.72.
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. The tribunal found £562.72 gross wages were properly payable for 51.16 hours worked at £11 per hour and had not been paid on termination. | Upheld | — | £563 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £563
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 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.