Case 2502327/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Daphne Rhodes v Georges GBK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502327/2023
- Decision date
- 4 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Daphne Rhodes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Daphne Rhodes brought a claim that Georges GBK Limited had failed to pay wages for the final period of her employment in June 2023. The respondent did not present a response, so the tribunal considered the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis of the claim form, the claimant's written material, her payslip, and iMessage correspondence with the respondent's director, Alan Newton.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed as a waitress from 7 November 2022 to 10 July 2023 and was paid £9.50 an hour. It accepted that in her final payslip she was due gross wages of £904.88 for the period 1 June to 30 June 2023, based on 95.25 hours worked, payable on 30 June 2023, and that none of that amount was paid on that date. The tribunal was satisfied there was no contractual or other authorisation for the deduction and no prior written agreement or consent by the claimant.
The tribunal held that the failure to pay amounted to an unauthorised deduction of wages and that it had sufficient information to issue judgment under rule 21. It noted that on 14 July 2023 the respondent paid £404.85 in part payment, leaving £500.03 outstanding. The judgment therefore ordered the respondent to pay the remaining gross sum of £500.03 to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- sections 13, 24 and 25(3) 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.