Case 2600322/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Dunning v Fred Blake T/A Elite Private Security — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600322/2023
- Decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Welch Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Dunning
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 9 February 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge therefore made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The listed hearing on 21 June 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with an itemised pay statement in accordance with section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996. The extracted judgment does not record a separate monetary award for that finding.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £635.75 gross. In addition, it found that holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered payment of £367.22. The total payable was £1,002.97.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with an itemised pay statement in accordance with section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate monetary award was stated for this finding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £635.75 gross. | Upheld | — | £636 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £367.22. | Upheld | — | £367 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,003
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.