Case 1304835/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Renar v True Drylining Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304835/2023
- Decision date
- 12 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Renar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was entered in default under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a response within the relevant time limit. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £6,551.72 gross. The judgment records that the amount was gross and that the respondent was responsible for any income tax and National Insurance deductions.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed in its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of the main terms of employment complying with section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996. Under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the award was increased by four weeks' gross pay, assessed at £1,628.80. The total sum payable by the respondent was £8,180.52.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £6,551.72. The judgment states that the respondent is responsible for deductions of any income tax and National Insurance contributions. | Upheld | — | £6,552 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of the main terms of employment complying with section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996. The award was increased under section 38 Employment Act 2002 by four weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £1,629 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,181
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 default judgment
- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 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.