Case 2500996/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D O’Neil v Chai & Coffee 1 Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500996/2024
- Decision date
- 17 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D O’Neil
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant submitted an ET1 on 19 May 2024 alleging unauthorised deduction of wages by the respondent, Chai & Coffee 1 Limited. The claim form was forwarded to the respondent's registered office on 30 May 2024, with a deadline of 27 June 2024 to file a response. No response was received.
On the basis of the information provided by the claimant and in accordance with Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, Employment Judge Arullendran determined the matter on the papers without a hearing. The Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages to be well-founded.
The claimant stated he was owed wages for 66.5 hours of work at £18.00 per hour, totalling £1,197.00. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,197.00, with the claimant responsible for any tax or national insurance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered under Rule 21 without a hearing as no response was filed by the respondent. Sum represents 66.5 hours at £18.00 per hour gross; claimant responsible for any tax or national insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,197 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,197
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal 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.