Case 2602036/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Paulucci v v Oxdale Products Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602036/2022
- Decision date
- 28 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Paulucci v
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Camp struck out the respondent's response on the ground that it had no reasonable prospects of success and applied Rule 21. The judge had previously indicated that judgment should be given for the claimant in the sum of £1,784.61 for unauthorised deductions from wages, and repeated that reasoning in the final reasons.
The respondent objected by email and argued, first, that the claim had been dismissed under an unless order made on 16 February 2023, as varied the following day. The judge said that submission ignored the fact that the unless order had been set aside before it took effect. The respondent also said it would be unjust to enter judgment because the claimant had allegedly defrauded the respondent of tens of thousands of pounds.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent's response was struck out under Rule 21 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in the sum of £1,784.61 and ordered payment of that sum to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £1,785 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,785
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure
- section 25(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.