Case 2601754/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Solus Facilities Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601754/2021
- Decision date
- 12 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the East Midlands Employment Tribunals on 16 December 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed by the respondent in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay £150. The tribunal also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £135 gross.
The claim for a Preparation Time Order under Rule 75(2) was dismissed. The tribunal ordered payment of £285 in total and cancelled the hearing listed for 10 December 2021.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by the respondent in breach of contract in respect of notice and orders payment of £150. | Upheld | — | £150 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered £135 gross. | Upheld | — | £135 |
| Other | The claim for a Preparation Time Order under Rule 75(2) was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £285
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Rule 75(2)
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.