Case 2501966/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Hannah Johnson v Scott Martin — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501966/2024
- Decision date
- 19 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Hannah Johnson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Hannah Johnson, brought a claim for unlawful deduction of wages against the Respondent, Scott Martin. She had worked as a football coach at a summer football camp run by the Respondent for a six-week period beginning 22 July 2024, working two days a week at an agreed rate of £100 per day, with payment due on the Friday of the following week.
The Claimant presented her ET1 on 20 October 2024. The Respondent filed a Response by the due date of 17 December 2024 confirming that the claim was not contested. Employment Judge Sweeney was satisfied, on the basis of the information provided by the Claimant and the identical claim presented by her sister Rebecca on the same facts, that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 without a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the claim for unlawful deduction of wages was well founded and succeeded, and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £400.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Respondent did not contest the claim; judgment issued under rule 21 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Upheld | — | £400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £400
- 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.