Case 2602899/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Holmes v East Midlands Ambulance Service — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602899/2021
- Decision date
- 12 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Holmes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge determined the claim on the papers and found that East Midlands Ambulance Service had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £299.40 gross in respect of the deduction itself. It also ordered compensation under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in the sum of £250 for financial losses arising from the deduction.
No discrimination, dismissal, or other separate claim type is recorded in the judgment. The decision is confined to the wages deduction claim and the associated monetary award, with a total sum of £549.40.
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 wages and ordered payment of £299.40 gross plus £250 compensation under section 24(2) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £549 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £549
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £250
- compensatory remedy recorded
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.