Case 2218466/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr X Poiget v Slurp London Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2218466/2024
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr X Poiget
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 22 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Keogh therefore entered judgment on 13 January 2025 without a contested hearing. The claim was issued in the Central London Employment Tribunals on 12 April 2024, and the judgment was sent to the parties on 16 January 2025.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It awarded £6,171.28 gross, made up of £3,011.52 pay in lieu of notice, £184.01 accrued holiday pay and £2,975.75 wages for February 2024, subject to a deduction of £1,500 already paid by the respondent. The net amount payable on that claim was therefore £4,671.28.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,517.28. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £9,188.56.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages. The award was £6,171.28 gross, comprising £3,011.52 pay in lieu of notice, £184.01 accrued holiday pay and £2,975.75 wages for February 2024, less £1,500 already paid by the respondent. | Upheld | — | £4,671 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £4,517 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,189
- 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.