Case 2301682/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Thomas v Epsom Car Care Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301682/2024
- Decision date
- 14 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 23 January 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time and Employment Judge Ramsden made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (default judgment).
The Tribunal found unauthorised deductions of £2,930.46, dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice (£3,246.16 for four weeks' notice), entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment of £3,858 (claimant aged 49 with four years' service), and unpaid holiday entitlement of £1,281.20.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £11,315.82 in total. The hearing listed on 16 August 2024 was vacated. The claimant was directed to account to HMRC for any sums owed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Upheld | — | £2,930 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice (4 years' service = 4 weeks' notice). | Upheld | — | £3,246 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment (claimant aged 49, 4 years' service). | Upheld | — | £3,858 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement (gross). | Upheld | — | £1,281 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,316
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 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.