Case 2305948/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N van Oppen v Niall Donnelly — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305948/2021
- Decision date
- 16 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N van Oppen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 21 December 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 22 August 2022 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £3,965.00 gross. It also found that the respondent had not provided the claimant with written terms of employment and awarded an uplift of 25% of the amount claimed, assessed at £991.25 gross. The total payable was £4,956.25 gross, and the claimant was responsible for any tax or national insurance due to HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £3,965.00 gross under rule 21. | Upheld | — | £3,965 |
| Other | The tribunal also recorded that the respondent had not provided the claimant with written terms of employment and awarded a 25% uplift of £991.25 gross. | Upheld | — | £991 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,956
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,965
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.