Case 2503630/2019 · Employment Tribunal
James Woodward v H Atkinson & Sons (Ingleby) Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2503630/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
James Woodward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the matter as a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent did not present a response by the due date. On the material in the claim form, Employment Judge Sweeney was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was proved.
The tribunal found that the respondent had deducted £120 from the claimant's final salary, said to be to recover the cost of training. It held that an employer may not make such a deduction unless it is required or authorised by statute, by a relevant contractual term, or by the worker's prior written agreement or consent. On the facts before the tribunal, there was no such contractual authority and no consent to the deduction, so the claim was well founded.
The judgment ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £120. The hearing listed for 6 January 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; no ET3 response was received. The tribunal found the respondent deducted £120 from the claimant's final salary, said to be to recover training costs, and concluded there was no contractual authority or written consent for the deduction. | Upheld | — | £120 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £120
- across all upheld claims
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.