Case 2301149/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Michael and v Headstart Employment Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301149/2020
- Decision date
- 16 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Michael and
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent did not present a response within the stipulated time. The tribunal therefore determined the claim on the basis of the claimant's presented case and entered judgment against Headstart Employment Ltd. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and awarded £961.54.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay accrued untaken holiday outstanding on termination of employment and awarded £76.92. It further found a breach of contract in relation to notice pay and awarded £728.46 compensation, noting that this figure took into account earnings from other employment during the notice period. The total awarded was £1,766.92.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; the respondent did not present a response. | Upheld | — | £962 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment; the respondent did not present a response. | Upheld | — | £77 |
| Breach of contract | The award was for notice pay and the judgment notes that it took into account earnings from other employment during the notice period. | Upheld | — | £728 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,767
- 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.