Case 2218575/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Rauch v Transpora London Buses and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2218575/2024
- Decision date
- 26 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Clark APPEARANCES
Parties
5 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the claimant, Mr A Rauch, brought claims against Transpora London Buses, Transpora Group Limited, Transpora Limited and Londoner Buses. The respondents did not present a valid response on time and did not attend or appear represented. Employment Judge H Clark was satisfied that the respondents had been validly served and that the claim had come to their attention, including through ACAS, delivery of the claim form, and later email contact before the hearing. The tribunal therefore determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondents had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages by way of holiday pay and ordered them to pay £841.84 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £570. The judgment records no further remedy components, and the total monetary sum awarded was £1,411.84.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages by way of holiday pay; the tribunal ordered payment of £841.84 gross. | Upheld | — | £842 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in respect of notice; the tribunal awarded damages of £570. | Upheld | — | £570 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,412
- 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.