Case 2414299/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Connolley v Lunar Automotive Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414299/2021
- Decision date
- 13 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Connolley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21. It found that Lunar Automotive Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr Connolley's wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £2,553.60.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £294.73. The hearing listed for 23 June 2022 was cancelled. The accompanying interest notice states that interest would accrue if the award was not paid within the relevant period, but it does not award a fixed interest sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Rule 21 judgment states that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and orders payment of the gross sum of £2,553.60. | Upheld | — | £2,554 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and orders payment of the gross sum of £294.73. | Upheld | — | £295 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,848
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.