Case 2201329/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Thomas Mallon v Secrets Euston Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201329/2019
- Decision date
- 9 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Thomas Mallon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThomas Mallon worked as a waiter for Secrets Euston Ltd from November 2014. He said a new remuneration structure introduced in August 2018 altered his entitlement to 50% of the service charge and that he did not agree to the change. He also said that on 4 February 2019 he was told that John McKeown Clubs Ltd was taking over, was invited to a meeting with the new manager on 7 February, and after a short discussion he never received a date for a further meeting; he treated his employment as terminated on 11 February 2019.
He presented claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages on 11 April 2019. The respondents did not file ET3 responses despite repeated correspondence and extensions, and the tribunal applied rule 20 and rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, together with the overriding objective, to consider whether default judgment should be entered. The judge rejected the respondents' late position that they had not received the claim papers, referring to the July and September correspondence and the absence of any response or draft ET3.
Judgment was entered against the second respondent and the claim against the first respondent was dismissed. The second respondent was ordered to pay £33,886.65, made up of a basic award of £2,032, loss of earnings of £19,305.28, notice pay of £2,032, holiday pay of £406.67, unpaid wages of £3,333.37, and a 25% increase of £6,777.33 for failure to heed the ACAS Code on Discipline and Grievance. The judge noted that if there were an innocent explanation for the delay, the respondents could apply for reconsideration within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal entered default judgment against the second respondent; the claim against the first respondent was dismissed. The judgment did not split the award between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal entered default judgment against the second respondent; the claim against the first respondent was dismissed. The judgment did not split the award between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £33,887
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,032
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £25,077
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 20 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- overriding objective
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.