Case 3304961/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Dangerfield v MJ Direct Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3304961/2020
- Decision date
- 17 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Dangerfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a proper response to the claim, so judgment was entered for the claimant under Rule 21. The tribunal noted correspondence from the respondent dated 22 October 2020, but held that it did not comply with rule 16 and could not be treated as a valid response.
On the substantive claims, the tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded Mr A Dangerfield £4,420 in compensation for unpaid wages. The sum was described as a gross figure, with payment to be made net and the respondent responsible for accounting to HMRC for any tax or national insurance due.
The tribunal did not make any further award for wages after the date the claim was submitted, because there had been no application to amend the claim. It also made no award for holiday pay, because the claimant remained employed and did not appear to have taken holiday.
The claimant's pension contributions claim was dismissed. The tribunal held that pension contributions are not 'wages' for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that, while the claimant remained employed, the matter could not be pursued in the employment tribunal as a breach of contract claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment entered because the respondent did not present a proper response. The claimant was awarded £4,420 for unpaid wages as a gross sum, payable net with the respondent accounting to HMRC for any tax or national insurance due. | Upheld | — | £4,420 |
| Other | The claimant's claim for pension contributions was dismissed. The tribunal held that pension contributions are not 'wages' within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that while the claimant remained employed the matter could not be brought in the employment tribunal as a breach of contract claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,420
- 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.