Case 2305228/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Russell v Pressed Supplied Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305228/2021
- Decision date
- 28 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Russell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 21 October 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records six completed years of employment from 30 June 2013 to 20 March 2020. On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,400.00 gross.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,400.00 net in damages. It further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,400.00 net. The judgment states that the respondent must pay the claimant £6,200.00 in total, and the hearing listed for 28 June 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,400.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered £2,400.00 net damages. | Upheld | — | £2,400 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £2,400.00 net. | Upheld | — | £2,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,200
- 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.