Case 2402817/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Stephens v Adam Brown t/a Fastrack Recruitment Worldwide — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402817/2021
- Decision date
- 20 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Stephens
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because the respondent, Adam Brown t/a Fastrack Recruitment Worldwide, did not present a valid response within the prescribed time limit. On that basis, Employment Judge Holmes found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,395.20, subject to tax and national insurance deductions being accounted for to HMRC.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £139.44, again subject to tax and national insurance being accounted for to HMRC. The combined award was £1,534.64. The separate notice on interest stated that interest would apply if the award was not paid within 14 days, with the relevant decision day recorded as 19 April 2022 and the stipulated rate as 8%, but no interest amount was set out in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered under Rule 21 because no valid response was presented in time. | Upheld | — | £1,395 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment entered under Rule 21 because no valid response was presented in time. | Upheld | — | £139 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,535
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- 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.