Case 6002768/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Ailsa Robertson v Voidservices Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6002768/2026
- Decision date
- 28 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ailsa Robertson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Aspden decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that the claim could properly be determined on the unchallenged facts in Ailsa Robertson's claim form and accompanying documents.
The Tribunal found that Voidservices Ltd made a series of unauthorised deductions from Robertson's wages between February and October 2025. Comparing the wages properly payable, as recorded in her payslips, with the amounts actually paid, the Tribunal found a shortfall of £2,266.17, including sick pay, holiday pay and other wages. The respondent was ordered to pay Robertson £2,266.17.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deductions included sick pay, holiday pay and other wages; the judgment awarded a single combined amount without separating those components. | Upheld | — | £2,266 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,266
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.