Case 2304828/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Larry Humphrys v Basketdrop Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304828/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Larry Humphrys
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Wright decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,441.25 net. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,085 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £379.75. The total amount ordered was £3,906, 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 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £2,441 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract finding was in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,085 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £380 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,906
- 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.