Claimant v Ion Ambulance
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. The respondent's late response showed nothing suggesting the requirements of section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were met. The respondent failed to provide any written explanation after being given notice to explain why the response should not be struck out.
Facts
The claimant filed a claim on 14 January 2025 alleging unauthorised deductions from wages. The respondent filed a response out of time on 14 May 2025. The tribunal notified the respondent on 6 August 2025 that the response had no reasonable prospect of success as there was nothing to suggest the requirements of section 13(1) ERA 1996 were met. The respondent was given 14 days to explain in writing why the response should not be struck out but failed to respond.
Decision
The tribunal determined under Rule 22 that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay £750.00 gross to the claimant. The claim succeeded as a default judgment after the respondent failed to provide any explanation for why their response should not be struck out.
Practical note
Rule 22 default judgments can be made where a respondent files a late response with no reasonable prospect of success and fails to respond to a strike-out notice, particularly in straightforward unauthorised deduction claims.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3300082/2025
- Decision date
- 5 September 2025
- Hearing type
- rule 21
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Name
- Ion Ambulance
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No