Case 2300487/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Tarr v Artificial Solutions UK Ltd (in Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300487/2021
- Decision date
- 27 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Tarr
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to enter a response to the claim. Employment Judge Ferguson, sitting alone, gave judgment for the claimant at London South Employment Tribunal on 27 March 2023.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, was unfairly dismissed, suffered unauthorised deductions from wages, and was not paid holiday entitlement. The respondent was ordered to pay damages and gross sums for those findings, with a total award of £56,549.40.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages of £25,000. | Upheld | — | £25,000 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment awards a compensatory award of £7,629 for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £7,629 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and orders payment of the gross sum of £20,030.40. | Upheld | — | £20,030 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and orders payment of the gross sum of £3,890. | Upheld | — | £3,890 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £56,549
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £7,629
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.