Case 1404425/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Griffiths v No. 21 Group Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404425/2021
- Decision date
- 25 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Griffiths
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 16 November 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 8 July 2022 was cancelled.
On that basis, the tribunal upheld three heads of claim. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and awarded £1,207.75. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £598.75.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,445.00. The judgment records no separate findings on liability beyond the rule 21 default determination and no other remedy components.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,207.75. | Upheld | — | £1,208 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £598.75. | Upheld | — | £599 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,445.00. | Upheld | — | £1,445 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,252
- 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.