Case 6021685/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Shalom Ajang v Hamiltons Cross — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021685/2024
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Shalom Ajang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from her pay on 12 December 2024. The respondent was served and notified that it had until 30 January 2025 to present its Response, but failed to do so. Employment Judge Aspinall determined under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay £604.80, calculated as 48 hours at £12.60 per hour. The hours had been worked across four shifts between 1 and 4 August 2024. The hearing previously listed for 24 April 2025 was cancelled.
A standard Article 12 interest notice was appended, setting the relevant decision day as 13 March 2025, the calculation day as 14 March 2025, and the stipulated rate of interest at 8% per annum, payable only if the award remained unpaid more than 14 days after the relevant decision day.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 22 determination after respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Award calculated as 48 hours at £12.60 per hour for shifts worked 1-4 August 2024. | Upheld | — | £605 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £605
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.