3314936/2023Claimant won

City Recycling and Storage Ltd

v J H B D Macedo

28 February 2025·Employment Tribunal·England & Wales·Employment Judge Hutchings

Respondent

City Recycling and Storage Ltd

All cases →

Decision date

28 February 2025

Tribunal

Employment Tribunal

Jurisdiction

England & Wales

Judge

Employment Judge Hutchings

Compensation awarded

£2,039

Extracted from judgment text — may not capture every award component precisely.

Case Summary

The claimant was awarded £2,039.43 for an unauthorised deduction from his wages in November 2023, as he did not give the required notice period.

Why this outcome?

The claimant succeeded in his claim for unauthorised deduction from wages because the respondent deducted money from his final payment in November 2023 without the required notice or consent.

Key Issues

  • unauthorised_deduction_of_wages
  • notice_period

Decision Text

Full PDF

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Jose Henrique Baptista De Macedo Respondent: City Recycling and Storage Ltd Heard at: Cambridge Employment Tribunal On: 28 February 2025 Before: Employment Judge Hutchings Representation Claimant: in person Respondent: did not attend JUDGMENT 1. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in November 2023. 2. The respondent shall pay the claimant £2,039.43, which is the net sum deducted. The respondent is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance. REASONS 1. Full reasons for the decision were given to the claimant at the hearing. However, as the respondent was not represented at the hearing, the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision to proceed with the hearing in the respondent’s absence and the reasons for the award made are summarised below. Non-attendance of the respondent 2. No representative for the respondent attended the hearing. Mindful of Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (copied below for reference) the Tribunal clerk telephoned the contact number provided by the respondent. There was no answer and the call diverted to voicemail. The clerk also checked the Tribunal inbox to ascertain whether the respondent had sent an email to explain its absence at the hearing. The last communication from the respondent was 13 January 2025 advising the Tribunal that: “As of 13/10/2024 Mr David N McDowell took over as director on this company” and providing contact details for Mr McDowell. The telephone number in this email was the number the Tribunal used to contact the respondent today. It is noted that the respondent delayed in sending this information to the Tribunal: the appointment was October 2024; the respondent did not notify the Tribunal until January 2025. Non-attend

Something doesn't look right?

Report a wrong claim type, outcome, summary, or award.