Case 3204923/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Puiu v ECC Group Ltd. — 2021
- Case reference
- 3204923/2021
- Decision date
- 15 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Puiu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Puiu did not attend the hearing and was not represented. Employment Judge B Elgot proceeded in his absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 after enquiries had been made about his absence and he could not be contacted.
The respondent did not enter a response compliant with Rule 16. The tribunal noted that the respondent had been warned by letter dated 10 November 2021 that default judgment might be issued if no response was received, and that no response was filed. The respondent's solicitor was not instructed to apply for an extension of time to present a response.
On the material available, the tribunal was satisfied that the claim could be properly determined. It recorded that the respondent acknowledged in correspondence that it owed the claimant £2,400. The claim for unlawful deductions from wages (arrears of pay) therefore succeeded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £2,400 within 28 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal described the claim as unlawful deductions from wages (arrears of pay). The respondent acknowledged in correspondence that it owed the claimant £2,400. | Upheld | — | £2,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,400
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 16 of the Employment Tribunals Rules
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.