Case 2304821/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Cambridge v Basketdrop Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304821/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Cambridge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The respondent had failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and awarded £2,170 net. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,056.47 damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £347.20. The total sum ordered was £3,568.67, and the hearing listed for 23 June 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment following the respondent's failure to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £2,170 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,056 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £347 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,569
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
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.