Case 2501794/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Brooke Hallewell v Eat Fresh Investments Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501794/2021
- Decision date
- 5 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Brooke Hallewell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBrooke Hallewell presented a claim for unlawful deduction of wages on 23 November 2021. The Respondent did not present a response by the due date, so the case was dealt with under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the available material.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by Eat Fresh Investments Ltd from 3 August 2021 until 27 August 2021 as an executive assistant. During that short employment, the Respondent deducted £150 from her pay for training that she in fact never received. The tribunal also found that the Respondent had no contractual or other authority to make the deduction.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the unlawful deduction of wages claim was well-founded and ordered the Respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £150.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £150 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £150
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.