Case 2301199/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Martin v Aerodyne Aircraft Development Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301199/2023
- Decision date
- 12 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 16 March 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No liability hearing was recorded in the extracted text, and the judgment is a default judgment based on the tribunal's assessment of the pleaded claims and the available material.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £20,712.53 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £13,749.99 in damages for that breach.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,480.77. The judgment recorded a total payable amount of £35,943.29 and cancelled the hearing listed for 28 September 2023.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 £20,712.53 gross. | Upheld | — | £20,713 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £13,749.99. | Upheld | — | £13,750 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £1,480.77. | Upheld | — | £1,481 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £35,943
- 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.