Case 1800242/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Walker v Automotion CPM Ltd t/a Car Motion HELD by: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1800242/2021
- Decision date
- 1 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Walker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Walker was employed as a used car sales executive from 2 June 2018 and was summarily dismissed on 13 October 2020. The respondent did not appear, was unrepresented, and filed no response. The tribunal therefore treated the awards as default judgments under Rule 21 and found the claimant's oral and documentary evidence proved the relevant facts.
The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the respondent did not prove the reason for dismissal and there was no evidence from the respondent that the dismissal was fair. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £969.15 and compensation for immediate loss, further immediate loss, and future loss. It accepted that after dismissal the claimant took a lower-paid driver job on 23 October 2020 at £300 net per week, and it used the pay difference to assess loss to 18 August 2021. The tribunal also added £500 for loss of statutory industrial rights, producing a total unfair dismissal award of £14,299.74, and noted that the Recoupment Regulations applied.
The tribunal also upheld a claim for 12 days' unauthorised deduction of wages in the sum of £420.00 and a holiday pay claim in the sum of £736.95. It found that the claimant was entitled to 28 days' holiday in the year, had taken nine days, and was therefore owed 15 days' holiday pay at termination. It also made a further award of £980.00 for failure to issue a statement of employment particulars because it had power to do so following the successful unfair dismissal claim.
Other monetary claims for commission, warranties, finance and cam belts, the pension element of the unfair dismissal claim, and short payment in September 2020 were dismissed because they were not proved. Claims about tax and national insurance matters and defamation were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Default judgment under Rule 21 after the respondent filed no response and did not appear. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was not proved and there was no evidence that the dismissal was fair. The unfair dismissal award included a basic award and compensation, plus £500 for loss of statutory industrial rights. | Upheld | — | £14,300 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for 12 days of unpaid wages at £35 per day net. The judgment says the unpaid days were in October 2021, but that appears inconsistent with the 13 October 2020 dismissal date. | Upheld | — | £420 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 28 days' holiday in the year, had taken nine days in 2020, and was therefore owed 15 days' holiday pay on termination at £49.13 net per day. | Upheld | — | £737 |
| Other | Grouped monetary claims for commission, warranties, finance and cam belts, the pension element of the unfair dismissal claim, and short payment in September 2020. The tribunal said these claims could not be proved. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claims about tax and national insurance matters and defamation were dismissed because the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear them. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,300
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £969
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £13,331
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
- Recoupment Regulations
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.