Case 1600090/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Stephenson v Goodhemp Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600090/2023
- Decision date
- 13 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Stephenson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Stephenson brought claims against Goodhemp Ltd in the Wales Employment Tribunals. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records that Goodhemp Ltd made unauthorised deductions from wages, failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, and dismissed him in breach of contract in respect of notice. The tribunal upheld each of those claims and ordered payment of the sums set out in the judgment.
The award was £1,089.92 gross for unauthorised deductions from wages, £251.52 in damages for breach of contract, and £952.88 for unpaid holiday entitlement. The total payable was £2,294.32. The hearing listed for 23 June 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £1,090 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £252 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £953 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,294
- 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.