Case 1401165/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Muir v Knight Polson Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401165/2023
- Decision date
- 6 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Muir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 17 March 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge said a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £2,287.80 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,534.25.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £2,287.80 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,288 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,534.25. | Upheld | — | £1,534 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,282.50. | Upheld | — | £4,283 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,105
- 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.