Case 2602060/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Patrick Andrews (1) Kevin Binder (2) Paul Oakley (3) v R Bance & Company Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2602060/2024
- Decision date
- 7 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Patrick Andrews (1) Kevin Binder (2) Paul Oakley (3)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing in Nottingham on 4 April 2025 before Employment Judge Clark sitting alone, the tribunal granted applications to amend the claims and refused the respondent's application to extend time for presenting a response to the original claims. The judge also reconsidered, of the tribunal's own motion under Part 12 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, an earlier Rule 22 liability judgment dated 24 March 2025 and varied it accordingly.
The judgment states that the claims were presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 17 December 2024 and that the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made of part of the case under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal held that the claims in respect of deduction from wages succeeded. The judgment does not determine the amount payable at this stage and says that remedy will be determined at a future hearing, unless agreed or otherwise ordered. The decision is therefore a liability judgment only.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claims in respect of deduction from wages succeed for the three claimants; remedy is to be determined at a future hearing if not agreed or subject to other order or judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Part 12 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.