Case 2301810/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Soosaithaser v Mac Home Improvements Euro Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301810/2021
- Decision date
- 22 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macey Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Soosaithaser
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at London South Employment Tribunal on 22 February 2023 before Employment Judge Macey. The respondent, Mac Home Improvements Euro Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation), failed to present a valid response on time and did not attend. The tribunal therefore made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and stated that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. It awarded £17,134.80 for unfair dismissal, made up of a basic award of £3,531.60 and a compensatory award of £13,603.20.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages by not paying holiday pay due between 28 October 2011 and 19 February 2021. It ordered the respondent to pay £13,550.88, described as the gross sum due. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment is £30,685.68.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Determined on the papers under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time and did not attend. | Upheld | — | £17,135 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had not paid holiday pay due between 28 October 2011 and 19 February 2021 and ordered payment of the gross sum due. | Upheld | — | £13,551 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,686
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,532
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £13,603
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.