Case 1401536/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Magill v Stagno Group Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401536/2022
- Decision date
- 7 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Magill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Magill presented his claim in the Exeter Employment Tribunal on 03 May 2022. The respondent, Stagno Group Ltd, failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Cadney Date determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay three sums: unpaid wages of £692.30, unpaid holiday pay of £1,661.52, and unpaid notice pay of £1,384.60. The total monetary award was £3,738.42. The written judgment does not set out further findings of fact or reasoning beyond the rule 21 determination and the award figures.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal ordered payment of unpaid wages of £692.30; the written record does not set out further factual particulars. | Upheld | — | £692 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal ordered payment of unpaid holiday pay of £1,661.52; the written record does not explain the underlying calculation beyond the award figure. | Upheld | — | £1,662 |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal ordered payment of unpaid notice pay of £1,384.60 as part of the monetary award. | Upheld | — | £1,385 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,738
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.