Case 2204839/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Think Education Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204839/2021
- Decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance, and Employment Judge E Burns determined the matter on the papers under Rule 21. The claimant, Jonathan Kapusta, was employed by Think Education Limited from 19 April 2021 to 19 July 2021 on a salary of £40,000 per year, equivalent to £769.23 gross per week. The judgment records that the employment ended without notice on 19 July 2021.
The tribunal found that the respondent had not paid wages for the relevant period in July 2021, had not paid one week’s notice pay, and had not paid 7 days’ holiday pay. It also accepted that £26.25 of expenses had been evidenced with receipts. The tribunal ordered gross payments of £2,000.00 for unpaid wages, £769.23 for notice pay, and £1,076.92 for holiday pay, together totalling £3,846.15 gross and subject to tax and national insurance deductions, plus £26.25 for expenses in full. The total monetary order was therefore £3,872.40.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says wages were unpaid for 1 July 2021 to 19 July 2021; the order calculates this as 2.6 weeks at £769.23 gross, producing £2,000.00. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
| Wrongful dismissal | One week’s notice pay was awarded at £769.23 gross following termination without notice on 19 July 2021. | Upheld | — | £769 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay was awarded for 7 days, described in the judgment as 1.4 weeks at £769.23 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,077 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal accepted evidenced expenses of £26.25 and ordered reimbursement in full, not subject to deductions. | Upheld | — | £26 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,872
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.