Case 6017440/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Okeleye v JC 24/7 Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017440/2025
- Decision date
- 18 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Okeleye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 12 May 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge KM Ross decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. It found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages in the period 1 December 2024 to 31 January 2025.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £621.12, being the gross sum deducted after deducting £500 already paid from £1,121.12. The tribunal noted that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due. The listed hearing on 8 October 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the matter was determined under rule 22. The deduction covered the period 1 December 2024 to 31 January 2025. | Upheld | — | £621 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £621
- 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.