Case 1805816/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Murphy v Monocle International Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805816/2021
- Decision date
- 31 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 26 November 2021 and the respondent did not present a valid response in time. The Employment Judge therefore entered judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and determined the claim on the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had acted in breach of contract in relation to unpaid pension contributions and employee contributions, and awarded the claimant £1,987.07. It also found unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of unpaid commission and awarded £925.00 gross.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,907.72 gross. It also found a further breach of contract for failure to pay notice due and awarded damages of £4,846.14 gross.
The total sum payable to the claimant was £10,665.93. No separate award for interest or any other component was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Awarded for unpaid pension contributions and the related employee contributions referred to in paragraph 2 of the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,987 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for unpaid commission. | Upheld | — | £925 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £2,908 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages for notice due. | Upheld | — | £4,846 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,666
- across all upheld claims
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.