Case 1400836/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Brutus v Paul Canela Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400836/2021
- Decision date
- 3 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Brutus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 8 June 2021 and the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The tribunal therefore proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and determined the claim on the papers. The judge recorded that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages, that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement.
The judgment states that the claim succeeds and that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing. No monetary figure is set out in this judgment, and no split of award between the individual heads of claim is given.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages to be paid, with the amount to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | — |
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.