Case 2303291/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B McGettigan v The Voewood — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303291/2021
- Decision date
- 27 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Burge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B McGettigan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 2 August 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge L Burge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £251.61 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £301.26.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £107.01. The total sum payable was £659.88.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £252 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £301 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £107 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £660
- 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.