Mr D Burton v Advanced Protection Group UK Ltd: 6007175/2024
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Wages[1]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period relating to the week ending 17 May 2024.[2]The respondent shall pay the claimant £307.14, which is the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance. Name of respondent[3]The Advanced Protection Group UK Limited is substituted as the correctly named respondent under rule 34. I am content pursuant to Rule 91 that the claim has in fact come to the attention of the respondent company because it was served to its registered office address. Case no: 6007175/2024REASONS
[4]The claim was issued in the Newcastle Employment Tribunals on 30 July 2024. The respondent has failed to present a response to the claim on time.[5]The claimant attended today’s hearing. He had not sent any evidence in advance (contract of employment, payslips, details of hourly rate, details of hours worked in the week ending on 17 May 2024) and told me that he had not appreciated the need to send evidence to the Tribunal before the hearing as he had the documents available on his phone.[6]I explained to the claimant that it would not be possible for me to view his evidence if it is on his phone and has not been sent to the Tribunal in advance. The decision that I took in the hearing was to adjourn to give the claimant the opportunity to send his documentary evidence to the Tribunal as dismissing his claim would be a disproportionate and draconian step to take.[7]On reflection, I am satisfied that a determination can be made from the information that the claimant has included in his claim form in accordance with Rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure and that it is not necessary or proportionate for there to be a further hearing to determine this claim.[8]Accordingly, I am issuing a Rule 21 judgment in respect of the claim.