Case 2600149/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Employment tribunal upholds unlawful-deduction-from-wages claim against MobiSkip Ltd
The claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 17 January 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and determined the claim on that basis.
- Case reference
- 2600149/2023
- Decision date
- 27 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Farmer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 17 January 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and determined the claim on that basis.
The tribunal found that MobiSkip Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Mr C Farmer's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay him £3,164.70 gross. No other heads of claim or separate remedy components are recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge made a rule 21 determination and found unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, ordering payment of £3,164.70 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,165 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,165
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, 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.