Case 1302824/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Falconer v Benjis House — 2022
- Case reference
- 1302824/2022
- Decision date
- 25 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Falconer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment in default under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent did not present a response within the relevant time limit. On that basis, it held that Benjis House had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of gross £1,380.00.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of gross £920.00. The total sum payable was £2,300.00. The judgment records that the sums were gross amounts and that the claimant was responsible for any income tax and National Insurance contributions on them. The hearing listed for 3 November 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under Rule 21; respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and was ordered to pay the gross sum. | Upheld | — | £1,380 |
| Breach of contract | Default judgment under Rule 21; the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and was awarded damages. | Upheld | — | £920 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,300
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.