Case 6009194/2024 · Employment Tribunal
V Rosu v Manbir Bains Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009194/2024
- Decision date
- 27 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
V Rosu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge determined the claim under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. On that basis, the tribunal dealt with the matter without the listed hearing, which was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £660.62.
The written record also included the standard tribunal notice on interest, stating that interest is governed by the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 and that the relevant decision day was 27 January 2025, with the calculation day being 28 January 2025 and the stipulated rate 8% per annum. No separate interest sum was stated in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 that a determination could properly be made on the claim without a hearing. | Upheld | — | £661 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £661
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.