Case 2500863/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Hodge v City Fresh Foods Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500863/2024
- Decision date
- 17 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Hodge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant submitted his ET1 on 26 April 2024. The claim form was forwarded to the respondent's registered office on 17 May 2024, and the respondent had until 14 June 2024 to respond but did not do so, and the papers were not returned as undelivered. The tribunal therefore proceeded to determine the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis of the information provided by the claimant, without a hearing.
The claimant's claim, set out at boxes 8.2 and 9.2 of his ET1, was for five days holiday pay and two days unpaid wages. The claimant worked 40 hours per week for £442 per week, giving a daily rate of £88.40. On that basis the tribunal calculated a total gross sum deducted of £618.80.
The tribunal held that the complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £618.80 gross, with the claimant responsible for any tax or national insurance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered under Rule 21 without a hearing as the respondent did not file a response. The complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages was well-founded; the £618.80 award comprises five days holiday pay and two days unpaid wages at a daily rate of £88.40. | Upheld | — | £619 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £619
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.