Case 3311674/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Altunkaynak v Renhas Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311674/2022
- Decision date
- 10 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Altunkaynak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 16 September 2022. The respondent, Renhas Ltd, failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Hutchings decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £6,551.00 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £904.00 gross.
The judgment records a total award of £7,455.00. No separate findings on liability beyond the rule 21 determination are set out in the short judgment, and no additional remedy elements are recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal made an award of £6,551.00 gross for unauthorised deductions from wages under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £6,551 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded £904.00 gross for unpaid holiday entitlement under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £904 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,455
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.