Case 2402655/2024 · Employment Tribunal
H Murphy v Sardonyx Staffing Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402655/2024
- Decision date
- 28 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
H Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued by Employment Judge KM Ross. The tribunal found that the respondent, Sardonyx Staffing Limited, had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and holiday entitlement, and was ordered to pay the gross sum of £3,454.21.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's expenses, ordering payment of £298.49, and had failed to pay the claimant's course fees, ordering payment of £184.00.
The judgment was accompanied by the standard notice under Article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, identifying the relevant decision day as 28 August 2024 and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum. No reasoning beyond the orders themselves is set out in the document, consistent with a Rule 21 default judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages and holiday entitlement; gross sum ordered. | Upheld | — | £3,454 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay claimant's expenses. | Upheld | — | £298 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay claimant's course fees. | Upheld | — | £184 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,937
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.