Case 2602581/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Sharrock v Rosenbird Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602581/2021
- Decision date
- 13 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Sharrock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 5 November 2022 and the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and the listed hearing on 7 June 2023 was cancelled.
On the merits, the tribunal found that Rosenbird Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,418.95 gross in respect of that unlawful deduction claim.
The tribunal also found that Mr D Sharrock was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded £346.66 net as damages for that breach. The judgment does not record any separate award under other heads of loss.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 wages and ordered payment of £2,418.95 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,419 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £346.66 net in damages. | Upheld | — | £347 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,766
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.