Case 2602414/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Keetley v Mr Pete Currey t/a PLJS Hospitality — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602414/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Keetley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge proceeded to determine the claim, or part of it, on the papers. The hearing listed for 22 March 2024 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £2,394.00 gross in respect of that claim.
The complaint for a redundancy payment was dismissed because the claimant did not have the two years’ qualifying service required by section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996. The separate claim for two months’ rent was also dismissed. No further remedy was recorded beyond the wage deduction award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £2,394.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,394 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the qualifying period of two years’ service required by section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim for two months’ rent was dismissed; the judgment does not identify a separate statutory claim type for this complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,394
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 155 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.