Case 3205526/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Mohammed v Eagle Tech Security Solutions — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205526/2022
- Decision date
- 31 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Mohammed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 1 December 2022 and the respondent did not present a valid response in time. The Employment Judge therefore proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and made a determination on the papers. The listed hearing on 17 April 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Eagle Tech Security Solutions had made unauthorised deductions from Mr A Mohammed's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £7,543 gross. The judgment records that the amount was calculated on a gross basis, and that the respondent was entitled to make any deductions due for tax and national insurance before payment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under rule 21. The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £7,543 gross, subject to lawful deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £7,543 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,543
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.