Case 2400079/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Umeshkumar Parmar v James Bret Jackson — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400079/2022
- Decision date
- 27 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Umeshkumar Parmar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the claim under rule 21 because the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. It therefore made a determination without a full hearing and ordered payment of the claimant’s wage claim and holiday entitlement claim.
It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £6,249.99 gross, calculated as three sums of £2,083.33 for October to December 2021. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £673.08 gross.
The accompanying notice explains the statutory interest regime under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, including that the relevant decision day was 27 July 2022 and the stipulated rate of interest was 8%, but the judgment itself does not quantify an interest figure. The listed hearing on 20 September 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was ordered under rule 21 to pay £6,249.99 gross, being three monthly sums of £2,083.33 for October to December 2021. | Upheld | — | £6,250 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent was ordered under rule 21 to pay £673.08 gross for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £673 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,923
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
- section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838
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.