Case 2601056/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A J Kent v Brendan Quinn Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601056/2022
- Decision date
- 28 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A J Kent
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 21 April 2022 and the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £100 gross.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a statement of employment particulars and had given no explanation or mitigation for that failure. It considered it just and equitable to award four weeks' gross pay at £195.30 per week, producing an award of £781.20. The total amount ordered to be paid to the claimant was £881.20.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and was ordered to pay £100 gross. | Upheld | — | £100 |
| Other | Failure to provide a statement of employment particulars; the tribunal awarded four weeks' gross pay at £195.30 per week, totalling £781.20. | Upheld | — | £781 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £881
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.