Case 6005405/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Tipper v Syn Restaurant and Bar Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005405/2024
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Tipper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure because Syn Restaurant and Bar Ltd failed to present a valid response on time. The judgment also records that Syn Restaurant and Bar Ltd was substituted as respondent, and that the judge was satisfied under Tribunal Rule 89 that the claim form had come to the respondent's attention because it was served at the registered office of Syn Restaurant and Bar.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. The respondent was ordered to pay Mr N Tipper £835.88. No separate breakdown of the award into different remedy heads is given in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal determined the claim under rule 22 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £836 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £836
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Tribunal Rule 89
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.