Case 2502425/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Richardson v Jack Ryan trading as Limitless Payments — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502425/2022
- Decision date
- 6 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Richardson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss D Richardson, brought a claim against Jack Ryan trading as Limitless Payments for unauthorised deduction of wages. The hearing took place at Newcastle CFCTC by CVP on 6 March 2023 before Employment Judge Arullendran, with the claimant appearing in person and no attendance for the respondent.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deduction of wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded. The judgment records an award of £807.69 gross, subject to any statutory deductions the respondent may be obliged to make.
The tribunal also awarded a 25% uplift pursuant to section 207A of TULRCA 1992 in the sum of £201.92. The total award ordered was £1,009.61.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim well-founded under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of £807.69 gross plus a 25% uplift of £201.92 under s.207A TULRCA 1992. | Upheld | — | £1,010 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,010
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.