Case 6018229/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Leighton v David Robert Brown — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018229/2024
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Leighton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, David Robert Brown, failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that the claim could properly be determined in accordance with Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, and the listed hearing on 13 March 2025 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. On that basis, the claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £377.52.
The judgment includes the standard interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that interest may be payable if the sum is not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, but the judgment does not quantify any interest award.
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 made a determination under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £378 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £378
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- The 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.