Case 2409834/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Domonic Fisher v Sonny Forde Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409834/2022
- Decision date
- 2 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Domonic Fisher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 10 December 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Cline determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal made findings on the papers without a contested hearing.
The tribunal held that Sonny Forde Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Mr Domonic Fisher's wages in respect of unpaid wages and pension contributions. It ordered payment of £3,541.15 gross for that claim. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement in respect of 9.8 days' holiday and ordered payment of £1,697.63 gross.
The judgment records that the award is subject to the usual tribunal interest provisions if unpaid after the relevant decision day. No separate breakdown for interest or any other remedy was set out in the judgment. The total of the monetary awards made was £5,238.78 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of unpaid wages and pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £3,541 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment: tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement in respect of 9.8 days' holiday. | Upheld | — | £1,698 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,239
- 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.