Case 2207648/2021 · Employment Tribunal
MR D Etim v Luxe Refurbs Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207648/2021
- Decision date
- 31 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR D Etim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Russell sat alone at London Central on 31 March 2022. The respondent did not appear. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's race discrimination and unfair dismissal claims were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and notice pay were upheld because the respondent had failed to file a defence, so judgment was entered in default. The tribunal found that the claimant had established the debt due.
The claimant was awarded an aggregate of £5,632.26 gross, stated as £4,257.18 net, to cover one month's accrued wages for November 2021 and one month's pay in lieu of notice from the date of dismissal on 29 November 2021.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld in default because the respondent failed to file a defence. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay upheld in default because the respondent failed to file a defence. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,632
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.