Case 3302362/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Singh v Eason Group Ltd C/o Hillier Hopkins — 2020
- Case reference
- 3302362/2020
- Decision date
- 16 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent did not present a response to the claim, and the tribunal entered judgment for the Claimant under Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The decision records that the Claimant, Mr H Singh, and the Respondent, Eason Group Limited c/o Hillier Hopkins, were before Employment Judge Vowles, dated 16 November 2020.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the Claimant had suffered unauthorised deductions from wages. It awarded him £743.40 in compensation. The judgment states that the sum is awarded gross and that the Claimant must account to HMRC for any income tax and national insurance deductions due.
The judgment also notes that the Claimant had ticked the box for redundancy pay, but that there is no claim for redundancy pay. No redundancy award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment entered because the Respondent did not present a response. The tribunal awarded the sum gross, with the Claimant to account to HMRC for any income tax and national insurance due. | Upheld | — | £743 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £743
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £743
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.