Case 3322936/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Segal v Trend Energy Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3322936/2021
- Decision date
- 10 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Segal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 18 November 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, judgment was entered without a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that Mr J Segal was unfairly dismissed contrary to section 99(3)(ca) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded a basic award of £544, described as one week at the statutory maximum for a week's pay. It also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £3,250.
The tribunal further found that the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £16,250 in damages. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £5,500; the extracted text renders this figure as £5.500. The judgment states that no sum was recoverable for the claimed ex gratia payment and legal costs.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It found the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to section 99(3)(ca) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded a basic award of £544. | Upheld | — | £544 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £3,250. | Upheld | — | £3,250 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £16,250. | Upheld | — | £16,250 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The extracted text records the sum as £5.500; this has been treated here as £5,500 on the face of the judgment. | Upheld | — | £5,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,544
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £544
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.