Case 6008702/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Chambers v Dean Robson t/a The Bull — 2024
- Case reference
- 6008702/2024
- Decision date
- 13 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Chambers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £841.33. The judgment records no split of the award into separate heads of loss, only the gross sum payable to the claimant.
The claimant also applied for a preparation time order, but that application was refused. The tribunal said none of the criteria for such an order had been established. It noted that the mere fact that the respondent had not paid sums it was obliged to pay did not meet the test for a preparation time order.
In refusing that application, the tribunal further noted that the respondent's failure to submit a response post-dated the application for a preparation time order and had not caused the claimant to undertake additional preparation time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and was ordered to pay the gross sum of £841.33. The claimant's application for a preparation time order was refused because the criteria for such an order were not established. | Upheld | — | £841 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £841
- 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.