Case 2306162/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Samson Adams v Capital Property Training Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306162/2023
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Samson Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment determined without a hearing by Employment Judge Yardley at London South (by CVP) on 18 March 2024. The claim had been issued on 4 November 2023, and the Respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent did not attend.
On consideration of the ET1, the Tribunal found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages, had dismissed the Claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, and had failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement. The Respondent was ordered to pay gross sums of £280.00, £173.08 and £638.16 respectively, totalling £1,091.24. The Claimant was directed to account to HMRC for any sums owed in respect of payments received. Reasons were given orally; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; Respondent did not present a valid response. Awarded as gross sum. | Upheld | — | £280 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; gross sum awarded. | Upheld | — | £173 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement; gross sum awarded. Recorded by Layer 1 listing under Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £638 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,091
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure
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.