Case 3200862/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Hoque v Applied Hire Works Systems Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200862/2021
- Decision date
- 7 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Hoque
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file a response and did not attend the hearing or make any written representations. Employment Judge Jones entered judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and the claim succeeded.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £500 gross, calculated as 20 hours at £12.50 for two weeks. It also recorded that the claimant was due a refund of CIPD course fees: he had paid £263.00 and had already been refunded £92.34, leaving £170.66 to be paid.
The total ordered was £670.66. The judgment does not separately identify a legal label for the course-fee balance, but it was included in the overall award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment. The tribunal ordered £500 gross for an unauthorised deduction from wages and a further £170.66 for the balance of CIPD course fees; the judgment does not separately label the legal basis for the course-fee sum. | Upheld | — | £671 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £671
- 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.