Case 2407613/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Hindle v Core Guard Security Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407613/2023
- Decision date
- 13 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Hindle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent from Daniel Perkins to Core Guard Security Limited after noting that the ACAS early conciliation certificate named the company and that service at the shared address would have reached Mr Perkins. The respondent did not reply to the notice of claim dated 21 August 2023 and did not present a response by 18 September 2023.
Because no response was filed, the tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Mr Hindle succeeded on two complaints arising from the termination of his employment: failure to pay annual leave entitlement, described as holiday pay, and unlawful deduction from wages.
The tribunal ordered Core Guard Security Limited to pay Mr Hindle a total gross sum of £1,438.32. That sum was made up of £589.16 for holiday pay and £849.16 for unlawful deduction from wages. The judgment also included the standard interest notice, stating that interest would apply if the award was not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, but no separate interest figure was set out in the decision itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Described in the judgment as a failure to pay annual leave entitlement; awarded as part of the total gross sum. | Upheld | — | £589 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as part of the total gross sum following the respondent's failure to present a response. | Upheld | — | £849 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,438
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
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.