Case 2301502/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Boylan v Remus Corporation UK Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301502/2021
- Decision date
- 31 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Boylan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 20 April 2021, and the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the papers.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, failed to make contributions to the claimant's pension fund, and failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. Each head of claim was upheld.
The tribunal ordered payment of £7,985.91 gross for unauthorised deductions from wages, £20,944.80 gross for notice damages, £1,204.26 gross for pension fund contributions, and £871.76 gross for holiday entitlement, making £30,196.73 in total. It also recorded that the claimant is responsible for any tax or national insurance due to HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as gross pay for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £7,986 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Damages awarded in respect of notice after dismissal in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £20,945 |
| Other | Awarded for failure to make contributions to the claimant's pension fund; no specific statutory label was given in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,204 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £872 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,197
- 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.