Case 2401035/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Thompson v SCV Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401035/2024
- Decision date
- 27 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBecause the respondent did not present a valid response on time, Employment Judge Holmes proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and decided the claim in the respondent's absence. The judgment recorded that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement.
The tribunal ordered SCV Group Limited to pay Mr N Thompson the gross sum of £1,740.29. The order states that the sum is gross and that the claimant is responsible for any tax and national insurance due on it. The hearing listed for 23 July 2024 was cancelled. The accompanying notice on interest stated that no interest would be payable if the award was paid within 14 days of 27 June 2024, and that otherwise interest would accrue from 28 June 2024 at 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages. The gross award of £1,740.29 was made on the same Rule 21 judgment and was not split between this head and the holiday entitlement finding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The gross award of £1,740.29 was not split between this head and the wages deduction finding. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,740
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.