Case 1401710/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Aberson v AND Richard Language School Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401710/2024
- Decision date
- 11 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Aberson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a default judgment under Rule 21 after the time for presenting a response expired and no valid response was presented by the respondent. The matter was determined in chambers at Plymouth on 22 November 2024 by Employment Judge N J Roper, with the judgment sent to the parties on 11 December 2024.
The tribunal found the claimant entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £8,076.60. It further found the claims for breach of contract (12 weeks' notice pay, net of benefits received), unlawful deduction from wages (covering unpaid wages, pension contributions, overtime and expenses), and accrued but unpaid holiday pay (7 days, gross) to be well-founded, and ordered the respondent to pay the corresponding sums.
No reasons beyond the Rule 21 determination are set out in the judgment, and no working time regulations breach or other discrete head of claim is separately adjudicated in the document.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded under Rule 21 default judgment. | Upheld | — | £8,077 |
| Breach of contract | 12 weeks' notice pay (less benefits received), net sum. | Upheld | — | £2,673 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages of £2,602.55 plus unpaid pension contributions, overtime and expenses of £1,771.29. | Upheld | — | £4,374 |
| Holiday pay | 7 days' accrued but unpaid holiday pay in the gross sum stated. | Upheld | — | £628 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,752
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.