Case 1404428/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Robbie Appleton-Sas v Sulacress Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404428/2020
- Decision date
- 28 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Robbie Appleton-Sas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, the tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant’s wages. It ordered Sulacress Limited to pay Mr Robbie Appleton-Sas the gross sum of £1,061.30 in respect of that claim.
The claim of breach of contract in respect of notice was not determined on its merits. The judgment states that it was dismissed upon the Claimant’s withdrawal.
The claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed. The tribunal recorded that Mr Appleton-Sas had less than two years’ service and that none of the exceptions in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,061.30 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,061 |
| Breach of contract | The notice claim was dismissed upon the Claimant’s withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant had less than two years’ service and none of the exceptions in s.108 ERA 1996 applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,061
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.