Case 3300551/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hensall, Solicitor For the v Rerun Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300551/2022
- Decision date
- 27 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hensall, Solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at Cambridge on 10 October 2022 before Employment Judge Tynan. The Claimant was represented by a solicitor; the Respondent did not attend and was not represented.
The Tribunal declared that the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the Claimant's wages and ordered the Respondent to pay £2,956.51 gross in respect of that deduction.
The Tribunal also recorded that the Claimant's further entitlement to a remedy for unfair dismissal and for the Respondent's failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment would be determined on paper. Written reasons were not provided with the judgment because reasons had been given orally at the hearing, subject to any request for written reasons within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal declared that the Respondent made an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered payment of £2,956.51 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,957 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the Claimant's further entitlement to a remedy in respect of his unfair dismissal would be determined on paper; the amount was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records the Respondent's failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment, with further entitlement to a remedy to be determined on paper. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,957
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.