Case 2402449/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Sweeney v Martin's Pubs, Clubs and Restaurants Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402449/2022
- Decision date
- 15 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Sweeney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave judgment under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It determined the claim on the papers and found in the claimant's favour on each of the substantive monetary claims recorded in the judgment. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded £2,080, calculated by reference to a £2,600 monthly salary at an 80% furlough rate.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from wages. The award was calculated as £2,600 per month salary at an 80% furlough rate. | Upheld | — | £2,080 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. Damages were assessed at two weeks' statutory notice at £600 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. The figure was calculated using 1.5 weeks for each complete year of service when aged over 40, capped at £538 per week, giving 2 x 1.5 x 538. | Upheld | — | £1,614 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent was found to have failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The award was calculated as 8 weeks at £600 per week. | Upheld | — | £4,800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,694
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.