Case 2601073/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Arnold v Chinook Engineering Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601073/2024
- Decision date
- 4 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Arnold
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 5 July 2024 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Victoria Butler therefore made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 without a contested hearing, and the hearings listed for 16 October 2024 and 1 to 3 September 2026 were cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £7,512.51 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £1,249.99 for that claim. The total award recorded by the judgment is £8,762.50.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £7,512.51 gross under rule 21. | Upheld | — | £7,513 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,249.99. | Upheld | — | £1,250 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,763
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals 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.