Case 2305580/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Raymond Ranch v Complete Cellar Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305580/2019
- Decision date
- 3 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Raymond Ranch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the respondent had not presented a response within the stipulated time. The tribunal therefore determined the matter on the claimant's claim without an attended hearing, and the listed hearing on 26 June was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Mr Raymond Ranch had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered Complete Cellar Services Limited to pay damages of £2,030.00 for that breach.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages. It ordered the respondent to pay compensation of £523.63 for that claim. The combined amount awarded was £2,553.63.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages of £2,030.00. | Upheld | — | £2,030 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and awards compensation of £523.63. | Upheld | — | £524 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,554
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.