Case 3311522/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S West v Munchfit Limited in Liquidation — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311522/2022
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S West
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Foxwell Date recorded that the respondent, Munchfit Limited in Liquidation, had not presented a response. The tribunal therefore entered judgment for the claimant, Mr S West, on the claims determined in the order.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £4,369.24 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £5,538.48.
The judgment further states that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,142. Separately, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,230.80.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £4,369.24 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,369 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment says the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £5,538.48. | Upheld | — | £5,538 |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,142. | Upheld | — | £1,142 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment says the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,230.80. | Upheld | — | £1,231 |
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.