Case 2602137/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O McClymont v Arctec Systems Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602137/2022
- Decision date
- 1 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O McClymont
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 8 September 2022 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 16 December 2022 was cancelled as a result.
The tribunal found that Arctec Systems Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mr O McClymont's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £650.00 gross in respect of the deductions. It also ordered payment of £350 compensation under section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £650.00 gross plus £350 compensation under section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 24(2) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.