Case 2300826/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Elliott v FME Biomass — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300826/2023
- Decision date
- 12 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Elliott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Wright stated that a determination could properly be made of the claim, or part of it, under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay Mr M Elliott £920.00 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages of £400.00 gross for that breach.
The total sum payable was £1,320.00 gross. The judgment records that the claimant is responsible for any amounts owed to HMRC in respect of tax or national insurance contributions, and that the hearing listed for 16 August 2023 was cancelled.
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 and ordered payment of £920.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £920 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards £400.00 gross damages. | Upheld | — | £400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,320
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.