Case 2212781/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Robert Workman v Moport Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2212781/2023
- Decision date
- 29 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Robert Workman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under rule 21 because the respondent failed to file an ET3. Employment Judge Baty considered the ET1 and the documents supplied by the claimant and decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing.
The judgment records that the claimant's employment terminated with effect from 17 August 2023, after he had been given 3 months' notice on 17 May 2023. On the papers before the tribunal, the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay salary for May, June and part of August 2023, although the claimant accepted that he was paid his salary for July 2023.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay a statutory redundancy payment. The award was calculated by reference to the claimant's 2 complete years' service, weekly pay capped at the statutory maximum week's pay of £643, and a multiplier of 1.5. The tribunal further found that expenses of £193.50 net had not been paid.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £10,926.20 net in total, being the sum of the unpaid salary, the statutory redundancy payment and the unpaid expenses.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent unlawfully failed to pay the claimant's salary for May, June and part of August 2023. The judgment records that the claimant accepted he was paid his salary for July 2023. | Upheld | — | £8,804 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay a statutory redundancy payment. The judgment states the award was based on the claimant's 2 complete years' service, a weekly pay figure capped at the statutory maximum of £643, and a multiplier of 1.5. | Upheld | — | £1,929 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay expenses in the sum of £193.50 net. | Upheld | — | £194 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,926
- 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.