Case 3320932/2021 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Applied Biotech Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3320932/2021
- Decision date
- 7 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Talbot-Ponsonby Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend the hearing on 5 April 2022. The tribunal found that the respondent knew or ought to have known of the hearing and proceeded in its absence under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent was in breach of contract in three respects: by making deductions from the claimant’s wages in respect of pension contributions and failing to pay those sums into the claimant’s pension, by failing to pay the 3% pension contributions to the claimant’s pension, and by failing to reimburse the claimant for the publishing cost of a book chapter that had been commissioned by agreement with the respondent.
The tribunal awarded the claimant £1,604.76. The written record states that, because reasons were given orally at the hearing, written reasons would not be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The respondent did not attend. The tribunal proceeded in absence under Rule 21 and awarded a single sum for the breach of contract findings. | Upheld | — | £1,605 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,605
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
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.