Case 3205393/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Haines v Clarity Products Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205393/2021
- Decision date
- 24 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Haines
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Taylor decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under that rule.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,608.91 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,799.00.
The respondent was ordered to pay £9,407.91 in total, and the hearing listed for 7 February 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay £1,608.91 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,609 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,799.00. | Upheld | — | £7,799 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,408
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.