Case 2420317/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Robinson v Lunar Automotive Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2021

Case reference: 2420317/2020
Decision date: 8 October 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Slater

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr J Robinson

Respondent

Lunar Automotive Limited (in compulsory liquidation)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal gave judgment under Rule 60 on the basis of admissions in the response. It found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by not paying the claimant wages at 80% of normal pay for the period 1 September 2020 to 16 December 2020 inclusive, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £5,681.

The tribunal also found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant in lieu of 14.5 days' accrued but untaken holiday on termination of employment, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,354.88.

The judgment did not determine the complaints about deduction of employee pension contributions, underpayment for holiday taken during furlough, or constructive unfair dismissal. Those matters were left for a further judgment on paper or a final hearing if required.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Judgment entered on the basis of admissions in the response for unpaid wages at 80% of normal pay from 1 September 2020 to 16 December 2020 inclusive.	Upheld	—	£5,681
Holiday pay	Judgment entered on the basis of admissions in the response for payment in lieu of 14.5 days' accrued but untaken holiday on termination.	Upheld	—	£1,355

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £7,036; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.