Case 1300383/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Spence v Deepak and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300383/2020
- Decision date
- 17 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Spence
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment entered because no response had been filed. Employment Judge Lloyd recorded that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages, and ordered payment of £450.00 gross.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded £650.00 in damages. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £949.00.
In addition, the tribunal made an award of £2,100.00 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of terms of contract. The total sum payable by the respondent was £4,149.00, and the judgment stated that no further award was made. The listed hearing on 24 April 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and was ordered to pay the gross sum of £450.00. | Upheld | — | £450 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant was found to have been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages of £650.00. | Upheld | — | £650 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £949.00. | Upheld | — | £949 |
| Other | An award under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 was made for failure to provide a written statement of terms of contract. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,149
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.