Case 3310010/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Casimir v Temple Wines (Cash & Carry) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3310010/2021
- Decision date
- 20 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Casimir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal recorded that the Respondent, Temple Wines (Cash & Carry) Limited, failed to present a response within the time permitted. Pursuant to rule 21, judgment was entered for the Claimant, Mr S Casimir, on the claims before the tribunal without a defended hearing.
The tribunal awarded £439.61 for unpaid wages. It also awarded £1,163.68 for accrued untaken annual leave, and £296.37 for notice pay. The judgment does not set out separate reasoning beyond the rule 21 default judgment and the individual sums awarded on each head of claim.
The total award was £1,899.66. No separate award for interest, basic award, compensatory award, or injury to feelings was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered under rule 21 after the Respondent failed to present a response within the time permitted. | Upheld | — | £440 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment entered under rule 21 after the Respondent failed to present a response within the time permitted; described in the judgment as accrued untaken annual leave. | Upheld | — | £1,164 |
| Breach of contract | Judgment entered under rule 21 after the Respondent failed to present a response within the time permitted; described in the judgment as notice pay. | Upheld | — | £296 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,900
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21
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.