Case 2501648/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Henderson v Stessa Leisure Holdings Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501648/2021
- Decision date
- 21 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Henderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal decided the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 on the available material after no response was returned by the Respondent. The judgment records that the proceedings were served with a response date of 23 November 2021, that the claim form was later sent to the Respondent's registered address on the direction of Employment Judge Jeram, and that no response was served. The Tribunal proceeded under rule 21 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
The Claimant was employed as an Apprentice personal trainer from 17 October 2019 until 15 July 2021, when she resigned. The Tribunal found that, at termination, she had worked 93 hours between 1 July and 15 July 2021 and had not been paid for those hours at the rate of £6 per hour.
The Tribunal was satisfied that there was sufficient information to issue judgment in the Claimant's favour. The unauthorised deduction of wages claim was well founded and succeeded, and the Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £558.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £558 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £558
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 21 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.