Case 3302635/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Street, Solicitor For the v Innoplexus AG — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302635/2023
- Decision date
- 16 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Ord Appearances
- Venue
- Huntingdon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Street, Solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. The tribunal gave judgment that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract and was entitled to notice pay of £14,292.12 net.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages, made up of December salary, pension payments, and unpaid expenses, totalling £3,934.84. It further awarded £4,287.47 net for accrued but untaken holiday pay.
The total net amount due to the claimant was recorded as £22,514.43. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons available only on request within the stated period.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and entitled to notice pay of £14,292.12 net. | Upheld | — | £14,292 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment identifies unlawful deductions comprising December salary of £663.43, pension payments of £2,940.00, and unpaid expenses of £331.41. | Upheld | — | £3,935 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the claimant was entitled to payment for accrued but untaken holiday pay of £4,287.47 net. | Upheld | — | £4,287 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,514
- 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.