Case 1402890/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Airey v AND Optrel AG — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402890/2022
- Decision date
- 7 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Airey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in chambers at Plymouth on 22 June 2023. The judgment records that the time for presenting a response had expired and that no valid response had been presented, so judgment was entered under Rule 21. No response from the respondent meant the tribunal determined the claim on the material before it.
The claimant, Mr A Airey, succeeded on a breach of contract claim. The tribunal ordered Optrel AG to pay two months' notice pay in the sum of £8,000.00. The judgment does not set out any further reasoning beyond the Rule 21 disposal and the amount awarded on that head of claim.
The claimant also succeeded on an unlawful deduction from wages claim. The award was £4,635.00 gross, made up of unpaid mobile telephone expenses of £1,135.00 and an unpaid bonus of £3,500.00. The claimant further succeeded on a claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay, for which the tribunal ordered payment of 2.5 weeks' pay in the gross sum of £2,500.00.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Succeeding claim under Rule 21; the respondent was ordered to pay two months' notice pay of £8,000.00. | Upheld | — | £8,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award comprised unpaid mobile telephone expenses of £1,135.00 and an unpaid bonus of £3,500.00, totalling £4,635.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,635 |
| Holiday pay | The claimant succeeded on accrued but unpaid holiday pay and was awarded 2.5 weeks' pay in the gross sum of £2,500.00. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,135
- across all upheld claims
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.