Case 1800718/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Arrand-Ogg v The Ultimate Battery Company Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800718/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Arrand-Ogg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response in time. On that basis, the Employment Judge decided the matter without the listed hearing proceeding.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and awarded £692.31 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £15,000 gross.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £2,480.77 gross. The judgment also stated that, if any tax or National Insurance is payable, the claimant is responsible for paying it.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £692 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £15,000 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £2,481 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,173
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21
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.