Case 2419632/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Shelley v Lunar Automotive Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2419632/2020
- Decision date
- 8 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Shelley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 60 on the basis of admissions in the response. It 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 1 September 2020 to 10 December 2020 inclusive.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £6,480. The judgment did not determine the complaint concerning deduction of employee pension contributions, which was left for a final hearing, or the complaint about underpayment for holiday taken during furlough, which was left for a further paper judgment or final hearing if an outstanding issue remained.
The notice attached to the judgment stated that interest would apply under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the judgment sum was not paid within 14 days after 8 October 2021, at a stipulated rate of 8%, but no interest amount was awarded in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment was entered on the basis of admissions in the response for unpaid wages at 80% of normal pay from 1 September 2020 to 10 December 2020 inclusive. Complaints about employee pension contributions and holiday underpayment during furlough were not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | £6,480 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,480
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 60
- 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.