Ms N Armstrong v Kreative CCTV Ltd: 2501288/2018

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2501288/2018
Ms N ArmstrongClaimantKreative CCTV LtdRespondent
Employment Judge GarnonDate 26 September 2018

JUDGMENT

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 –Rule 21 MADE AT NORTH SHIELDS ON 30th August 2018 EMPLOYMENT JUDGE GARNON JUDGMENT (Liability and remedy )[1]The claims of unlawful deduction of wages is well founded.. I order the respondent to repay to the claimant wages of £387[2]The other claims included in the claim form will be the subject of separate case management orders

REASONS

[1]The claims were accepted on 22nd June and served on 5th July 2018 . A response was due by 2nd August 2018. None was received. A Judge is required by rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 to decide on the available material whether a determination can be made and , if it can , obliged to issue a judgment which may determine liability only or and liability and remedy. I consider the above judgment appropriate because the claim form gives sufficient information to enable me to find the claims proved on a balance of probability and to determine the sums due .[2]The law relating to unlawful deduction of wages is in Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 TM Garnon[1]By Order dated 30th August 2018 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing by 14 September 2018, as to why the complaints of detriment on the grounds of making a Public Disclosure and/or asserting a Statutory Right and of Unfair Dismissal should not be struck out because they have not been actively pursued.[2]The claimant has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The complaints of detriment on the grounds of making a Public Disclosure and/or asserting a Statutory Right and of Unfair Dismissal are therefore struck out.