Case 3314709/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mark Kelly v Cygnus Smart Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314709/2021
- Decision date
- 8 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mark Kelly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records a hearing at Bury St Edmunds by CVP on 25 August 2022 before Employment Judge Laidler. The respondent's application for an extension of time to enter its response and for reconsideration of the decision to enter default judgment was refused, so the default judgment remained in place.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £128,600. The written record breaks that sum down as £110,000 for unauthorised deductions from wages, £6,600 for car allowance, and £12,000 for accrued holiday pay, calculated at 26 days at £461.53 per day. The record notes that reasons were given orally and does not set out further written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award calculation included £110,000 for 11 months of unauthorised deductions from wages at £10,000 per month and £6,600 for car allowance at £600 per month. | Upheld | — | £116,600 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as accrued holiday pay for 26 days at £461.53 per day. | Upheld | — | £12,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £128,600
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.