Case 2600015/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Simpson v Xorba Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600015/2022
- Decision date
- 10 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Simpson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Simpson presented a claim against Xorba Services Limited. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, so the Employment Judge determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 13 May 2022 was cancelled.
On the merits, the tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £834.62 gross. No separate breakdown of the award was given in the judgment.
The tribunal refused the claimant's remaining application for compensation for loss of earnings, distress and delay, stating that it had no power to make an award for those matters in a claim of this type.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £834.62 gross. The claimant's remaining request for compensation for loss of earnings, distress and delay was refused because the tribunal said it had no power to award those matters in a claim of this type. | Upheld | — | £835 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £835
- 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.