Case 6020767/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Aleksander Andersen v The Baskerville Arms — 2026
- Case reference
- 6020767/2024
- Decision date
- 17 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Smith
- Venue
- Reading via video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Aleksander Andersen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant brought a claim for unauthorised deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not attend the final hearing on 21 January 2026, had not complied with the disclosure order, and had not corresponded further with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal proceeded in the claimant's absence under Rule 47. It found that the claimant had been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations after a strike-out warning order was sent on 17 December 2025, but no response was received by the 2 January 2026 deadline. The whole claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because it was not being actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim as unauthorised deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and strikes out the whole claim under Rule 38(1)(d) because it was not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.