Case 2500838/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Walsh v John Stirk — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500838/2023
- Decision date
- 18 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Dempsey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Walsh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Newcastle Upon Tyne by video on 18 July 2023 before Employment Judge O'Dempsey. The respondent did not enter an appearance or file a response, so the tribunal dealt with the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.
The tribunal declared that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages in the pleaded sum of £640. It recorded that £100 of that sum had already been paid, leaving £540 outstanding.
The judgment ordered the respondent to pay £540 in compensation for the unlawful deductions under section 24 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No other remedy, award component, or additional claim outcome is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal proceeded under rule 21 because no response had been entered by the respondent. It declared that unlawful deductions had been made from the claimant's wages in the pleaded sum of £640, noted that £100 of that sum had already been paid, and ordered payment of the balance of £540 under section 24 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £540 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £540
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- section 24 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.