Case 6010420/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Callum Harris v Complex Logistics Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6010420/2025
- Decision date
- 4 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Callum Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim of unlawful deduction from wages against Complex Logistics Ltd, alleging non-payment for 81 hours worked between January and February 2025. The case was heard at Cambridge Employment Tribunal by CVP on 4 March 2026 before Employment Judge Hutchings sitting alone. The claimant did not attend; the Tribunal proceeded in his absence under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 after considering his late hospital-appointment explanation and finding it unsatisfactory.
On the evidence in the hearing file, the Tribunal found that the claimant had been paid £680.76 net (£931.50 gross) for the 81 hours, calculated at his contractual hourly rate of £11.50, by cheque dated 18 July 2025 and cashed on 22 July 2025. Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal concluded that there had been no unlawful deduction from wages because the claimant had received payment of his wages in full. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim of unlawful deduction from wages dismissed. The Tribunal proceeded under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 in the claimant's absence and found that the wages claimed (81 hours at £11.50/hour, totalling £931.50 gross / £680.76 net) had been paid by cheque cashed on 22 July 2025. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.