Case 2501916/2021 · Employment Tribunal
GILLIAN COOPER v Hinds Building Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501916/2021
- Decision date
- 21 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge RODGER
- Venue
- NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CIVIL AND FAMILY TRIBUNAL CENTRE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
GILLIAN COOPER
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningGillian Cooper brought a claim against Hinds Building Services Limited for unauthorised deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The case was heard at Newcastle upon Tyne Civil and Family Tribunal Centre on 16 February 2022 before Employment Judge Rodger sitting alone.
The tribunal held that the claimant's wage deduction claim was well-founded and upheld it. The judgment does not set out further factual findings or a detailed reasons section in the extracted text.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,444.00. No separate allocation of the award between heads of loss is recorded in the judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant's claim of unauthorised deduction of wages in contravention of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and upheld. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,444.00. | Upheld | — | £1,444 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,444
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 of the 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.