Case 2302255/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Jones v Michael Eastwood and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302255/2021
- Decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Jones
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 25 June 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Wright Date determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No hearing findings on liability were recorded beyond the judgment entered on the papers.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,833.34 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages assessed at £64.39. A further award of £1,048.81 net was made because the respondent had failed to make contributions to the claimant’s pension plan.
The judgment recorded a total amount due of £2,946.54. It also stated that the claimant is responsible for any figures owed to HMRC in respect of tax or national insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,833.34 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,833 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £64.39 in damages. | Upheld | — | £64 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to make pension plan contributions and ordered payment of £1,048.81 net. | Upheld | — | £1,049 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,947
- 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.