Case 2307410/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Marsden v Pan Motorcycles Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2307410/2020
- Decision date
- 3 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clarke
- Venue
- London South Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Marsden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge sat alone at London South Tribunal on 2 August 2021. The respondent did not attend, and its emailed application for a postponement was refused. The tribunal found that the claimant's claim for an unlawful deduction from wages, brought under section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and based on failure to pay the national minimum wage under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, was well founded and therefore succeeded.
On the figures accepted by the tribunal, the claimant worked 40 hours per week and should have been paid at the applicable national minimum wage rates of £7.70 for March 2020 and £8.20 for April to June 2020. The tribunal calculated an underpayment of £268.67 for March 2020 and £1,066.00 for April to June 2020, giving a gross award of £1,334.67.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded under section 13(1) ERA 1996 for failure to pay the national minimum wage under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. The tribunal ordered payment of £1,334.67 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,335 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,335
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13(1) ERA 1996
- National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015
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.