Case 2300488/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A White v Artificial Solutions UK Ltd (in Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300488/2021
- Decision date
- 27 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A White
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent failed to enter a response to the claim. Employment Judge Ferguson, sitting alone, gave judgment 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 and awarded damages of £25,000. It also found that the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and failed to pay holiday entitlement, awarding gross sums of £13,828.96 and £2,604.64 respectively.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated period.
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 complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and awards the gross sum of £13,828.96. | Upheld | — | £13,829 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement and awards the gross sum of £2,604.64. | Upheld | — | £2,605 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £41,434
- 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.