Case 2601756/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Rob Ransome v Nijran Partners Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601756/2023
- Decision date
- 18 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rob Ransome
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 4 August 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Clark made a Rule 21 determination on the papers. The hearing listed for 9 February 2024 was cancelled.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £903.69 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay outstanding accrued but untaken holiday and ordered payment of £2,200.85 gross.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 £903.69 gross under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £904 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found outstanding accrued but untaken holiday pay was due and ordered payment of £2,200.85 gross under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £2,201 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract for failure to give notice of termination and assessed compensation at £4,518.46 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,518 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,875.39. | Upheld | — | £2,875 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,498
- 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.