Case 2602276/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Anderson v Seneco Group Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602276/2021
- Decision date
- 29 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr B Anderson
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Adkinson Date determined the claim under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The judgment records that the tribunal could properly make a determination on the papers and that all future hearings were cancelled.
The claimant, Mr B Anderson, succeeded on all matters addressed in the judgment. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £5,000 gross, and it also found further unauthorised deductions from wages with a separate award of £409 net. It further found that Mr Anderson had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding £625 gross damages.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £1,875 gross. The decision records a total award of £7,909.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £5,000 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £625 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment refers to unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,875 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment describes this as further unauthorised deductions from wages and awards £409 net. | Upheld | — | £409 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,909
- 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.