Case 1405128/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Thorne v Autobet Limited — 2019

Case reference: 1405128/2018
Decision date: 21 January 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Goraj

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Thorne

Respondent

Autobet Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent प्रस्तुतed no response to the claim. On the information before the Employment Judge, the tribunal determined the matter without an attended hearing. The judgment records that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant’s wages.

The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s outstanding holiday entitlement. A further finding was made that the respondent had breached contract by failing to pay the claimant’s notice entitlement.

In addition, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. The extracted judgment does not record any monetary breakdown, and no separate remedy figures are stated in the text provided.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Rule 21 judgment; the Employment Judge found the respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages. No monetary figure is stated in the extracted text.	Upheld	—	—
Holiday pay	Rule 21 judgment; the Employment Judge found the respondent had failed to pay outstanding holiday entitlement. No monetary figure is stated in the extracted text.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	Rule 21 judgment; the Employment Judge found the respondent had failed, in breach of contract, to pay notice entitlement. No monetary figure is stated in the extracted text.	Upheld	—	—
Redundancy	Rule 21 judgment; the Employment Judge found the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. No monetary figure is stated in the extracted text.	Upheld	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.