Case 1404971/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Sherwood v Mark-eting Recruitment Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1404971/2023
- Decision date
- 5 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Sherwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to enter a response. Employment Judge Ferguson Date entered judgment for the claimant on the monetary claims and awarded £4,933.35 gross for unauthorised deduction from wages, £368.74 net for breach of contract in respect of notice, and £1,149.98 for unpaid holiday entitlement.
The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant did not have two years' service. No further factual findings or remedy calculations are set out beyond the specific sums ordered on the three successful monetary claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent failed to enter a response. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £4,933.35. | Upheld | — | £4,933 |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £368.74 net. | Upheld | — | £369 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,149.98. | Upheld | — | £1,150 |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out because the claimant did not have two years' service. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,452
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – 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.
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.