Case 3310752/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Patel v Aerotek Worldwide Staffing Company — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310752/2022
- Decision date
- 25 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 16 August 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. There was no listed hearing and the judgment was entered in the register on 25 March 2023.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £2,596.15.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's breach of contract claim. It found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of a registration fee for a CIPD Level 5 course and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £136.99. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment was £2,733.14.
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 unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,596.15. | Upheld | — | £2,596 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of a registration fee for a CIPD Level 5 course and awarded damages of £136.99. | Upheld | — | £137 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,733
- 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.
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.