Case 2500960/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Aisbitt v Mr Matthew Sharp — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500960/2022
- Decision date
- 26 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Aisbitt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 15 July 2022. Because the respondent did not present a valid response on time, Employment Judge Aspden Date determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal therefore proceeded on the papers and found the claimant's complaints well founded.
The tribunal held that deductions from wages had been made in contravention of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It accepted that £520.02 had been deducted purporting to represent employee pension contributions, and that £332.50 remained unpaid for work done from 14 to 18 March 2022.
The tribunal also found that £370 was due under regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for leave taken in March 2022. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,222.52 in total, and the hearing listed for 5 October 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found well founded the section 13 ERA 1996 deductions complaint in relation to £520.02 said to represent employee pension contributions and £332.50 for work done from 14 to 18 March 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found well founded the complaint that £370 was due under regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for leave taken in March 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,223
- across all upheld claims
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.