Case 6013498/2025 · Employment Tribunal
S Haslam v Its a Wrap Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013498/2025
- Decision date
- 17 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Haslam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 17 April 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Eeley determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The respondent's title was amended to Its A Wrap Ltd.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found to be well-founded. The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, comprising unpaid wages of £232.20 gross for January 2025 and £292.40 gross for February 2025.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £524.60 gross in total. A separate notice was issued under Article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 specifying interest accrual from 24 March 2026 at the stipulated rate of 8% per annum if not paid within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award of £524.60 gross comprising unpaid wages of £232.20 (January 2025) and £292.40 (February 2025). Respondent failed to present a valid response; rule 22 determination. | Upheld | — | £525 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £525
- 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.