Case 1600940/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Glover v The Kaiser Family Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600940/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Glover
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal decided the claim on the papers and cancelled the hearing listed for 2 to 3 March 2023.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,900.00 gross. It also found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £1,142.00 and a compensatory award of £1,142.00.
The judgment records that there was no award for breach of contract because the basic award had been given, and that the other amounts sought by the claimant were not within the Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction. The total sum payable was £5,184.00.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,900.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,900 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was found to have been unfairly dismissed and was awarded a basic award of £1,142.00 and a compensatory award of £1,142.00. | Upheld | — | £2,284 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states there was no award for breach of contract because the basic award had been given, and that the other amounts sought by the claimant were not within the Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,184
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,142
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,142
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.