Case 2301683/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Pink v Epsom Car Care Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301683/2024
- Decision date
- 14 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Pink
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 on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim 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 (£4,775.20 gross), dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice entitling him to 4 weeks' notice pay (£2,538.44 gross), and dismissed him by reason of redundancy, entitling him to a statutory redundancy payment (£2,538.44). The respondent had also failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement (£1,269.20 gross).
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £11,121.28 in total. The hearing listed for 16 August 2024 was cancelled, and the claimant was directed to account to HMRC for any sums owed in respect of payments received under the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £4,775 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract regarding notice; 4 weeks' notice based on 4 years' service. | Upheld | — | £2,538 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment calculated on basis of age 32 and 4 years' service. | Upheld | — | £2,538 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,269 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,121
- 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.