Case 3315470/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M SIngh v Casey Farquharson trading as Commun IT — 2021
- Case reference
- 3315470/2020
- Decision date
- 11 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge QUILL
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M SIngh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge QUILL found for the claimant on three money claims against Casey Farquharson trading as Commun IT. The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £1,268.60 gross, subject to lawful PAYE deductions if any.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £320 in damages. The judgment records that no evidence of tax and national insurance deduction had been provided to the claimant by the respondent.
Finally, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £191.70, calculated at £42.60 per day for 4.5 days. The total monetary award on the judgment is £1,780.30.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from wages and was ordered to pay the gross sum of £1,268.60, after lawful PAYE deductions if any. | Upheld | — | £1,269 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant was found to have been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and was awarded £320 damages. The judgment noted that no evidence of tax and national insurance deduction having been provided to the claimant by the respondent. | Upheld | — | £320 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent was found to have failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay £191.70, calculated as £42.60 per day for 4.5 days. | Upheld | — | £192 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,780
- 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.