Case 2200622/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Binning v Gentrian Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200622/2022
- Decision date
- 31 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Binning
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not enter a response, so the claims succeeded in default under Rule 21. Employment Judge Norris, sitting alone by CVP at Central London on 31 August 2022, ordered Gentrian Limited to pay net-pay sums without deduction to each claimant: Mr Cozzini £16,211.36, Mr Udhwani £6,000.00, Mr Lau £3,441.20, Ms Ramesh £5,733.27, Mr Kunkler £91,740.16, Mr Jones £23,037.31, Mr Chalkley £23,346.55 and Mr Binning £14,431.50, a total of £183,941.35.
The tribunal also made a declaration under section 12(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 that the respondent had failed to provide itemised payslips to Mr Kunkler and Mr Jones, contrary to section 8. It considered whether to make an employer penalty under section 12A(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996, but made no such order because of the section 12A(2) requirement to have regard to ability to pay.
The tribunal recorded that the claimants' contracts of employment were with the respondent. It said it had no power to add the director as a party and no jurisdiction to consider a claim in tort of deception. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days of the record of decision being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Default judgment under Rule 21. The tribunal ordered net-pay sums without deduction, but the judgment does not split the amounts between claim heads. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under Rule 21. The tribunal ordered net-pay sums without deduction, but the judgment does not split the amounts between claim heads. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal made a declaration under section 12(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 that the respondent failed to provide itemised payslips to Mr Kunkler and Mr Jones, contrary to section 8. It considered an employer penalty under section 12A(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996 but made no order under section 12A(2). | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £183,941
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 21
- section 12(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 12A(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- section 12A(2) Employment Tribunals 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.