Case 1302920/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Guest v Metaverse Recruitment Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1302920/2022
- Decision date
- 19 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Guest
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment in default because the respondent did not present a response within the relevant time limit, and it acted under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, it found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £585.03.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £68.82. The judgment states that the total sum payable was £651.85 and that the listed hearing on 20 December 2022 was cancelled.
The judgment records that the sums awarded were gross amounts and that the respondent was responsible for deductions of any income tax and National Insurance contributions. No separate breakdown of the total into different remedy heads is given beyond the two monetary awards stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered in default under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a response within the relevant time limit. | Upheld | — | £585 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment entered in default under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a response within the relevant time limit. | Upheld | — | £69 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £652
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.