Case 2603769/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hartopp v Merriott Chard Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603769/2020
- Decision date
- 17 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria.Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hartopp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 11 October 2020. 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.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £419.68 gross, calculated after taking account of £1,945.98 received from the Insolvency Service against £2,365.66. It also found that the respondent was in breach of the claimant's contract and ordered payment of £1,337.55 net in damages.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The wages award is stated as £419.68 gross, calculated as £2,365.66 less £1,945.98 received from the Insolvency Service. | Upheld | — | £420 |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The judgment states the respondent was in breach of the claimant's contract and must pay damages of £1,337.55 net. | Upheld | — | £1,338 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,757
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21
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.