Case 1806035/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hodgkiss v Spa Unique Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard: BY CVP — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806035/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hodgkiss
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 28 March 2023, Employment Judge JM Wade found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the statutory time limits, and that the further reasonable period for presentation ran up to and including 3 January 2023. The respondent did not attend and had not presented a response by the return date, so the tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 on the material available.
The unlawful deductions from wages complaint succeeded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £2,400 described as holiday pay and arrears. The breach of contract complaint also succeeded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £2,534 for unpaid expenses.
The complaint concerning July salary of £2,400 was dismissed on withdrawal on the hearing day, the tribunal being told that the amount had been paid in December 2022. The total sum payable by the respondent to the claimant was £4,934.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Succeeded for unpaid expenses. | Upheld | — | £2,534 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded for holiday pay and arrears. | Upheld | — | £2,400 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The July salary complaint for £2,400 was dismissed on withdrawal on the hearing day after the tribunal was told it had been paid in December 2022. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,934
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- 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.