Case 3305461/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Edward Drake v DRIVE Software Solutions Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3305461/2020
- Decision date
- 16 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Edward Drake
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment because the respondent did not file a response. Employment Judge Laidler entered judgment on the material before the tribunal on 16 September 2020. The tribunal found that Drive Software Solutions Limited had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £9,599.24 net, made up of back pay for 22 November 2019 to 31 January 2020, January 2020 deductions, February 2020 deductions, and pay for 1 to 23 March 2020.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to reimburse the claimant's travel and other allowable expenses incurred in February 2020 and ordered £201.78, and that it had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £10,461.54. The claim of unfair dismissal succeeded as well, but the tribunal did not assess the dismissal remedy in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered £9,599.24 net, made up of back pay for 22 November 2019 to 31 January 2020, January 2020 deductions, February 2020 deductions, and pay for 1 to 23 March 2020. | Upheld | — | £9,599 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to reimburse travel and other allowable expenses incurred in February 2020. | Upheld | — | £202 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £10,462 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim succeeded, but the remedy was left to be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
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.