Case 2304220/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Osundiya v Boss Security Services Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2304220/2018
- Decision date
- 21 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baron Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Osundiya
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo ET3 response was presented by the respondent within the time limit, so the tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. It declared that the claimant's complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging an unlawful deduction from wages properly payable, was well founded.
The tribunal ordered Boss Security Services Limited to pay the claimant £3,114.40 and a further £300 under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing listed for 10 April 2019 was vacated. The judgment is a default judgment and does not record any contested factual findings beyond the absence of a response.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under Rule 21; the tribunal ordered £3,114.40 plus a further £300 under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £3,414 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,414
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 24(2) 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.