Case 3315867/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Hyman v Virall Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3315867/2021
- Decision date
- 14 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Hyman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge George Date determined the case on the papers. The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages, and the tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,153.80.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. On that claim, damages of £1,390.00 were awarded.
Finally, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £76.92. The combined monetary award on the judgment was £2,620.72.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and was ordered to pay the gross sum of £1,153.80. | Upheld | — | £1,154 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,390.00. | Upheld | — | £1,390 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £76.92. | Upheld | — | £77 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,621
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.