Case 2407611/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Saunders v Honeycomb Systems Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2407611/2021
- Decision date
- 2 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Saunders
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment because the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented by the respondent. On that basis, Employment Judge Holmes entered judgment for the claimant, Mr L Saunders, against Honeycomb Systems Limited.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,750 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £242.31 gross.
The judgment directed payment of the gross sums, subject to the appropriate deductions for tax and national insurance if any, for which the respondent must account to HMRC. The attached interest notice stated that statutory interest would apply if the sums remained unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, 2 November 2021, with interest to run from 3 November 2021 at the stipulated rate of 8%.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response in time. | Upheld | — | £1,750 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £242 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,992
- 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.