Case 2305820/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Beling v Cohen Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305820/2021
- Decision date
- 15 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Beling
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 11 December 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Webster decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £218.25 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages of £1,091.25 awarded.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £990.85. The total sum awarded was £2,300.35.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £218 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states this was in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,091 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as failure to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £991 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,300
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.