Case 3311800/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Arkell v The Tipsy Vegan Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311800/2023
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Arkell
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the South East Employment Tribunals on 17 October 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Quill determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the tribunal could properly determine the claim, or part of it, on that basis.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £112.25 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £120.47 in damages. The total payable under the judgment was £232.72.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £112.25 gross under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £112 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £120.47 damages. | Upheld | — | £120 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £233
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.