Case 3314786/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Benjamin Hacker v Spa Monster Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314786/2022
- Decision date
- 21 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bennett Representation
- Venue
- Reading via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Benjamin Hacker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 8 December 2022 and the respondent did not present a valid response on time. A hearing was held on 17 July 2023 in Reading via CVP before Employment Judge Bennett. Neither party attended. The day before the hearing the claimant applied for postponement, but that application was refused and the case proceeded in the absence of both parties under Rule 47, with a determination then made under Rule 21.
The tribunal rejected the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages because the claimant had not provided the further information requested on 19 May 2023 about how the sums were calculated. On the material before the tribunal, the claim relating to August and September 2022 could not be quantified and therefore failed.
The redundancy payment complaint also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant had not been working for the respondent for two years, so he had no entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says the claimant did not provide further information about the calculation requested by the Tribunal on 19 May 2023, so the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of August and September 2022 could not be quantified and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant had not been working for the respondent for 2 years and therefore had no entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Rule 47
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.