Case 2502525/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Peters v Jack Ryan — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502525/2023
- Decision date
- 8 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Peters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Mr N Peters’ claim for unlawful deduction of wages against Jack Ryan trading as Aspire Business Group. The judgment explains that there was initial confusion about the respondent’s identity, because the claim was first associated with a different Aspire Business Group entity, but it was eventually amended to name Mr Ryan as the correct respondent. No response was presented by the respondent.
The tribunal proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and was satisfied that it had sufficient material to determine the claim without a hearing. It accepted the claimant’s contract of employment, signed by Mr Ryan, showing a start date of 20 September 2023 and annual salary of £35,000.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s employment ended on 5 October 2023 and that, for the period worked, the gross salary properly payable under the contract was £1,615.68. Judgment was therefore entered for that gross sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claim for unlawful deduction of wages succeeded and that the Respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £1,615.68. The reasons describe the award as the gross salary properly payable under the contract for the period of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,616 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,616
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals 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.