Case 2501965/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Rogers v Scott Martin — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501965/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's unlawful deduction of wages claim was well founded. Mr G Rogers worked as a football coach at a summer football camp run by Scott Martin for six weeks from 22 July 2024. The judgment records that he was to be paid £120 per day, with payment due on the Friday of the following week.
Mr Rogers was paid for the first four weeks of work, but he was not paid on 30 August 2024 for the week commencing 19 August 2024, nor on 06 September 2024 for the week commencing 26 August 2024. The tribunal found that the failure to pay wages on those occasions amounted to a deduction from wages for which there was no contractual or statutory authority.
Because no response had been presented, the tribunal applied rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and was satisfied it had enough information to issue judgment on the available material. It found that the total amount due to the claimant was £1,200 and ordered the respondent to pay that gross sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reasons section refers to 'Rebecca' when describing the claimant's working pattern; in context this appears to be a typographical error and the reference is to Mr Rogers. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,200
- 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.