Case 3300082/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Andreoli v Ion Ambulance — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300082/2025
- Decision date
- 23 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Andreoli
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 14 January 2025. The respondent filed a response out of time on 14 May 2025. In a notice and order sent on 6 August 2025, the respondent was told that the response had no reasonable prospect of success because there was nothing to suggest that the requirements of section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were met in relation to the deduction from the claimant’s wages.
The respondent was given 14 days to explain in writing why the response should not be struck out, but no written response was received. The tribunal therefore determined the claim under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages.
The remedy recorded in the judgment is that Ion Ambulance must pay Mr N Andreoli £750.00 gross.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay £750.00 gross. The response was treated under rule 22 after no written response was received to the notice and order. | Upheld | — | £750 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £750
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22
- s.13(1) ERA 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.