Case 6008651/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Ackley v Greater Manchester Sports Clubs Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008651/2025
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Ackley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims were presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 13 March 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that a decision could properly be made on the claim.
The Tribunal held that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. The respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 15 October 2024 to 6 January 2025. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £2,737.28 (calculated as £195.52 per week over 14 weeks) as the gross sum deducted, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance not deducted by the respondent.
The total award was £2,737.28. No award was made for additional compensation sought by the claimant, as the Tribunal stated it had no jurisdiction to award such compensation in the circumstances.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded for the period 15 October 2024 to 6 January 2025 (14 weeks at £195.52 per week = £2,737.28 gross). | Upheld | — | £2,737 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,737
- 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.