Case 3302883/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Employment tribunal upholds unlawful-deduction-from-wages claim against Dtd Logistics Solutions Ltd
The tribunal therefore stated that, pursuant to Rule 21(2), it found the claimant's claims succeed. The judgment expressly records that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages.
- Case reference
- 3302883/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr J Trenchfield
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondents failed to enter a response. The tribunal therefore stated that, pursuant to Rule 21(2), it found the claimant's claims succeed.
The judgment expressly records that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr J Trenchfield's wages. It ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,351.20.
No separate breakdown of remedy was given beyond the single gross sum, and the extract does not refer to any detailed findings on liability beyond the Rule 21 default judgment and the unauthorised deduction from wages finding.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment. The extract expressly records an unauthorised deduction from wages and awards the gross sum of £1,351.20. It also states that, because the respondent failed to enter a response, the tribunal found the claimant's claims succeed. | Upheld | — | £1,351 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,351
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21(2) 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.