Case 1600006/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Johnson v KML Security Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600006/2022
- Decision date
- 18 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Johnson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge C Sharp proceeded in the absence of an ET3 response form from KML Security Ltd. The judge recorded that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination and upheld the claimant's claims for unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay.
The judgment awards Mr T Johnson £280.00 gross for unpaid wages and £525.00 for unpaid holiday pay. It also states that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages.
No other claims, liability findings, or separate remedy elements are recorded in the judgment. The total monetary award on the face of the decision is £805.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld on a Rule 21 judgment in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent; award stated as unpaid wages (gross). | Upheld | — | £280 |
| Holiday pay | Upheld on a Rule 21 judgment in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent. | Upheld | — | £525 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £805
- 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.