Case 2208825/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Kunkler v Gentrian Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2208825/2022
- Decision date
- 12 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Kunkler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent did not file an ET3. Employment Judge E Burns therefore considered the ET1 and decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the Respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to Mr Michael Kunkler in the sum of £15,416 gross. The tribunal ordered Gentrian Limited to pay that sum to the Claimant, subject to deductions for income tax and national insurance, and directed the Respondent to account to HMRC for those deductions. The hearing listed for 20 January 2023 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the Respondent failed to file an ET3 and that the claim was determined on the papers under rule 21. The tribunal found an unlawful failure to pay wages in the sum of £15,416 gross and ordered payment less deductions for income tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £15,416 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,416
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.