Case 2200606/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v No appearance or — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200606/2022
- Decision date
- 25 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coen
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response to the claim had been presented, and the tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The respondent did not appear or have representation at the hearing.
The tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday accrued but not taken on termination under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the claim for a statutory redundancy payment under section 164(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant's claims succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay gross sums of £1,713.00 for statutory redundancy pay, £4,173.07 for unauthorised deductions from wages between 4 June 2021 and 19 July 2021, and £3,197.11 for 23.75 days' holiday pay accrued but not taken on termination.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal awarded the gross sum of £1,713.00 in respect of statutory redundancy pay. | Upheld | — | £1,713 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded the gross sum of £4,173.07 in respect of unauthorised deductions from wages between 4 June 2021 and 19 July 2021. | Upheld | — | £4,173 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded the gross sum of £3,197.11 in respect of 23.75 days' holiday accrued but not taken on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £3,197 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,083
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- section 111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 164(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.