Case 1800720/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Biggin v The Ultimate Battery Company Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800720/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Biggin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the claim under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a valid response in time. The judgment records that the claim had been issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 25 January 2024 and that the Employment Judge considered it appropriate to determine the matter without a hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and awarded the claimant £1,038.46 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £3,750.00 gross.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £1,903.85 gross. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance payable, and the hearing listed for 27 June 2024 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,038 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment specifies breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £3,750 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,904 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,692
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.