Case 3203198/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Bailey Mr I Bainsal v N-Gauge Resourcing Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203198/2022
- Decision date
- 16 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Park Attendance
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Bailey Mr I Bainsal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNeither party attended the hearing on 14 November 2022. The respondent had not presented a response, so the judgment was issued under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal recorded that the first claimant had sent documents relating to his case, including one document that also related to the second claimant's case.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the first claimant's wages and ordered payment of £880.00 gross, subject to lawful deductions for tax and national insurance. The tribunal made the same finding in relation to the second claimant and ordered payment of £880.00 gross on the same basis. No other claim types, liability issues, or legal tests were set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant awarded a gross sum of £880.00; respondent entitled to make deductions for tax and national insurance before payment. | Upheld | — | £880 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant awarded a gross sum of £880.00; respondent entitled to make deductions for tax and national insurance before payment. | Upheld | — | £880 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,760
- across all upheld claims
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.