Case 3219916/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Cox v Domestics Direct — 2021
- Case reference
- 3219916/2020
- Decision date
- 11 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Cox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Lewis at East London Hearing Centre by telephone on 11 June 2021. The respondent did not attend and had entered no Response, so judgment was given under Rule 21. Mrs A Cox appeared in person with the assistance of Mr R Cox.
The tribunal found that Domestics Direct had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the net sum of £326.19 in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide itemised pay statements for the week ending 29 March 2020 and for each week during the period 16 October 2020 to 18 November 2020. It ordered £883.34 under s 12(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, described as the aggregate of the unnotified deductions from the claimant's pay in the 13 weeks immediately preceding presentation of the claim form.
The total sum ordered to be paid forthwith was £1,209.53.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered the net sum of £326.19. | Upheld | — | £326 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide itemised pay statements for the week ending 29 March 2020 and for each week from 16 October 2020 to 18 November 2020. It awarded £883.34 under s 12(4) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £883 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,210
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- s 12(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.