Case 1404431/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Antill v Transitgt.com Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1404431/2019
- Decision date
- 24 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Antill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend the public telephone hearing on 24 April 2020. Employment Judge Livesey determined the matter under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the material before the tribunal.
The tribunal held that Transitgt.com Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr Antill’s wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £24,569.61. It also found that he had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,575.00.
In addition, the tribunal found that holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered £871.87, and that Mr Antill had not been provided with written terms and conditions of employment, for which it awarded a further £2,060. The total award recorded by the judgment was £29,076.48.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the net sum of £24,569.61 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £24,570 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,575.00. | Upheld | — | £1,575 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered £871.87. | Upheld | — | £872 |
| Other | The tribunal awarded £2,060 compensation because the claimant was not provided with written terms and conditions of employment. | Upheld | — | £2,060 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,076
- 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.