Case 6012566/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Ganderton v The Specialist Worx Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012566/2024
- Decision date
- 23 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Ganderton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal determined the claim under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, Regional Employment Judge Franey made a determination on the claim without the listed hearing proceeding, and the hearing listed for 27 February 2025 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that The Specialist Worx Group Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr S Ganderton's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £1,674.14. The judgment also states that the respondent is responsible for accounting to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due on the net payment and for any other statutory deductions arising from it.
A separate notice accompanying the judgment explains the tribunal's interest procedure under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It records the relevant decision day as 23 January 2025 and states that interest would be payable if the sum is not paid in full within 14 days, at the stipulated rate of 8% per annum, but no quantified interest amount is set out in the judgment text.
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 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £1,674 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,674
- 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.