Case 6020323/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Chiguvi v Gmanz Transport Service Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020323/2025
- Decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Chiguvi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr E Chiguvi presented his claim in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 1 June 2025. The respondent, Gmanz Transport Service Ltd, failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge M Butler decided that determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay Mr Chiguvi £5,440 gross. The judgment records that the claimant would be responsible for any tax liabilities arising if tax was not deducted from source.
The total amount payable was £5,440. The accompanying notice explains the tribunal’s interest position under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 and states that no interest is payable if the sum is paid in full within 14 days after the written record of the decision was sent to the parties on 3 December 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal decided the claim under rule 22 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £5,440 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,440
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, article 12
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.