Case 3203110/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Kuti v Mr D Singh and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 3203110/2019
- Decision date
- 2 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Kuti
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment in which the First Respondent, Mr D Singh, did not file a response but was found at the case management hearing on 11 May 2020 not to have been the Claimant's employer. The claims against the First Respondent were therefore dismissed.
The Second Respondent, All in Five Limited, also failed to enter a response. The tribunal therefore entered judgment for the Claimant on his unpaid wages, unpaid notice pay and unpaid holiday claims under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal ordered the Second Respondent to pay a total of £3,187.50. That sum was made up of £1,012.50 for unpaid wages for November 2019, £675.00 for 10 days' unpaid holiday, £1,350.00 for unpaid notice pay, and £150.00 described as other payments/charges.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Listed as unpaid wages for November 2019. | Upheld | — | £1,013 |
| Holiday pay | Listed as unpaid holiday for 10 days. | Upheld | — | £675 |
| Breach of contract | Listed as unpaid notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,350 |
| Other | Judgment describes this item only as 'other payments/charges', so the underlying legal basis is not specified in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | £150 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,188
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, 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.