Case 2414323/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Rose v Magnum Utilities Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414323/2021
- Decision date
- 27 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Rose
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge stated that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of one day’s pay, calculated as £96.15 based on an annual salary of £25,000 divided by 52 weeks and then by 5 days.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered damages of one week’s gross pay, £480.77, calculated from the same annual salary figure. The total amount payable was £576.92 within 14 days of the judgment. The attached notice stated that sums unpaid after 14 days may carry interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with the stipulated rate stated as 8%, but no separate interest figure was quantified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of one day’s pay. | Upheld | — | £96 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded one week’s gross pay as damages. | Upheld | — | £481 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £577
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.