Case 3314677/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M R Clark v USL Europe Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314677/2021
- Decision date
- 23 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M R Clark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 in favour of Mr M R Clark against USL Europe Ltd. It ordered the respondent to pay £4,166.67 in unpaid wages and £411.15 for arrears of wages, both stated as gross sums.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's contractual expenses and ordered payment of £76.00 gross. In addition, it found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £4,166.67 in damages.
Finally, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £4,789.25 gross. The total sum payable was £13,609.74, and the judgment was sent to the parties and entered in the register on 23 December 2021.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Order 1: gross sum of £4,166.67 in respect of unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £4,167 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Order 1: gross sum of £411.15 for arrears of wages. | Upheld | — | £411 |
| Breach of contract | Order 2: the respondent failed to pay the claimant's contractual expenses and was ordered to pay £76.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £76 |
| Breach of contract | Order 3: the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and was awarded £4,166.67 in damages. | Upheld | — | £4,167 |
| Holiday pay | Order 4: the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay £4,789.25 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,789 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,610
- across all upheld claims
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.