Case 1300256/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Not in attendance and Response Form rejected ( — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300256/2020
- Decision date
- 9 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal varied the default judgment previously made under Rule 21 and substituted this judgment after the claimant’s application for reconsideration. The respondent was not in attendance and the response form had been rejected under Rule 18.
It found the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £651.54 gross. It also found the breach of contract claim, identified in the judgment as wrongful dismissal, well-founded and awarded £384.62 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s accrued holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £419.08 for that claim. These sums were increased by £1,941.72 for consequential losses, made up of Universal Credit of £791.72 and mortgage insurance of £1,150.00, which the claimant said he could not claim because the respondent had not provided a letter of termination of employment and correct pay data for December 2019 and January 2020. The total amount payable was £3,396.96.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £652 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £385 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £419 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,397
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,942
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.