Case 2413341/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Unsworth v Lunar Automotive Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413341/2020
- Decision date
- 8 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Unsworth
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rules 21 and 60, on the basis that the respondent had not presented a response to claim number 2413341/2020 and on the basis of admissions in the response to claim number 2418612/2020.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by not paying wages at 80% of normal pay for the period from 1 September 2020 to 3 December 2020 inclusive. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £5,973.72.
The judgment did not determine the complaints about deduction of employee pension contributions or underpayment for holiday taken during furlough. Those matters were reserved for a further paper judgment or final hearing if any time limit or other outstanding issue remained to be decided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment was entered upon no response to claim number 2413341/2020 and on admissions in the response to claim number 2418612/2020. The complaints about deduction of employee pension contributions and underpayment for holiday taken during furlough were not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | £5,974 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,974
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rules 21 and 60
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.