Case 3323388/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Joslin v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3323388/2019
- Decision date
- 11 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr E Joslin
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a response to the claim. It found that Procan Bioscience Limited had made unlawful deductions from Mr E Joslin's wages, breached his contract of employment, and failed to pay all holiday pay due.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mr Joslin £863.83. The judgment does not break that figure down between the successful heads of claim.
The claim for a redundancy payment was dismissed because the claimant did not have the necessary length of service to bring such a claim. The claim relating to the provision of payslip(s) was not determined in this judgment and was listed to continue to a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered a single payment of £863.83 for the upheld claims and did not apportion that sum between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered a single payment of £863.83 for the upheld claims and did not apportion that sum between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered a single payment of £863.83 for the upheld claims and did not apportion that sum between heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the necessary length of service to bring a redundancy payment claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £864
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.