Case 2406831/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M M Vellathur v Global Facility Management Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406831/2022
- Decision date
- 22 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M M Vellathur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal therefore made a decision on the papers without a response from the respondent.
It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £6,743.55. It also found that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to reimburse mileage incurred, and ordered damages of £180.00.
The written notice on interest stated that the relevant decision day was 23 December 2022, the calculation day was 24 December 2022, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum under article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal, acting under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, found an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £6,743.55 gross. | Upheld | — | £6,744 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract because the respondent failed to reimburse mileage incurred and awarded £180.00 damages. | Upheld | — | £180 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,924
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the 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.