Case 3301272/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Aubrey v The Challenger Multiacademy Trust and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3301272/2021
- Decision date
- 4 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms K Aubrey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 21 on the papers. The tribunal found that the first respondent, The Challenger Multiacademy Trust, had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay the claimant the gross sum of £19,354.66.
The judgment also records that the second respondent, Daubeney Academy, had been dissolved on 5 December 2017. Because there was no application by the claimant to restore that respondent to the register, the complaint against the second respondent was dismissed. No other remedy or legal analysis is set out in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the first respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £19,354.66. | Upheld | — | £19,355 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The second respondent was stated to have been dissolved on 5/12/2017. The judgment records that, absent any application by the claimant to restore the second respondent to the register, the complaint against R2 would be dismissed on 4 October 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,355
- 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
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.