Case 2501963/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Rebecca Johnson v Scott Martin — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501963/2024
- Decision date
- 19 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rebecca Johnson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Rebecca Johnson, worked as a football coach at a summer football camp run by the Respondent, Scott Martin, for six weeks from 22 July 2024 at an agreed rate of £100 per day for three days per week. Wages were to be paid on the Friday of the following week. The Claimant received payment for the first four weeks (albeit late) but was not paid the £300 due on 30 August 2024 for week 5, nor the £300 due on 6 September 2024 for week 6.
The Respondent did not present a response by the deadline of 17 December 2024. Employment Judge Sweeney was satisfied under rule 21 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 that a determination could be made on the available material. The Tribunal found that the failure to pay the wages of £300 on 6 September 2024 was the last in a series of failures amounting to a deduction of wages for which there was no contractual or statutory authority.
The claim for unlawful deduction of wages was found to be well founded and succeeded. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £600, and the hearing listed for 17 February 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment issued in the absence of a response. Award represents £300 unpaid wages for week 5 (due 30 August 2024) and £300 unpaid wages for week 6 (due 6 September 2024). | Upheld | — | £600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £600
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 16 of the 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.