Case 2303564/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Munoz v McGuire Building Services limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303564/2021
- Decision date
- 27 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Munoz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file ET3 grounds of resistance. Neither party attended the hearing on 13 June 2022, and the tribunal recorded that attempts were made to contact the claimant’s representative and the claimant by telephone and email, but no response was received. The tribunal also noted that there was no email address or telephone number on file for the respondent, so contact attempts could not be made in that way.
Having considered the ET1, Employment Judge Atkins decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under Rule 21. The tribunal held that the claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages in respect of earnings due for work between 4 May 2021 and 14 May 2021 was well founded.
Pursuant to section 24 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £720.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment on the papers. The tribunal found the claim for earnings due for work between 4 May 2021 and 14 May 2021 well founded and ordered payment of £720 gross under section 24 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £720 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £720
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- section 24 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.