Case 2601402/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Tribunal upholds 3 claims against Seneco Group Ltd
The claim was issued on 19 June 2021 and the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
- Case reference
- 2601402/2021
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hogg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 19 June 2021 and the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the evidence before the tribunal, the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It was ordered to pay £3,228.39 gross for that claim. The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £745 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £745. The judgment records that any future hearing was cancelled. The total of the monetary awards made was £4,718.39.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 £3,228.39 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,228 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £745 in damages. | Upheld | — | £745 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £745. | Upheld | — | £745 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,718
- across all upheld claims
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.