Case 2408892/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Russell v Fresh Energy Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408892/2021
- Decision date
- 2 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Russell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent had not presented a valid response within the prescribed time limit. It found that Fresh Energy Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of £3,459.48 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement contrary to regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of £2,984.19 gross.
The judgment records that the claimant had not made any specific claim or provided details for notice pay, so no award was made for that issue. It also states that no ACAS uplift was awarded because the alleged failure to comply with an ACAS code of practice would only have been relevant to that notice pay issue. An attached notice explained that unpaid sums would carry statutory interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if not paid within 14 days of the written judgment being sent to the parties, with the relevant decision day stated as 2 November 2021 and the calculation day as 3 November 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; respondent did not present a valid response within the time limit. Tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum. | Upheld | — | £3,459 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment; tribunal found a failure to pay holiday entitlement under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of the gross sum. | Upheld | — | £2,984 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,444
- across all upheld claims
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.