Case 3325836/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Tallick v Fifth Zone Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3325836/2019
- Decision date
- 16 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Tallick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment made because the time limit for presenting a response had expired on 7 January 2020 and no response had been presented. Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto determined the case on the available material without a response from the respondent, Fifth Zone Limited.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages complaint and ordered the respondent to pay £1,125.25 gross. The judgment states that if the respondent pays the tax and national insurance due to HMRC, payment of the net amount will satisfy that part of the judgment debt.
The tribunal also upheld the claim that the respondent failed to pay the claimant for annual leave and ordered payment of £1,000.00. The judgment does not record any additional remedy components such as interest or injury to feelings. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment is £2,125.25.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £1,125.25 gross. The judgment noted that if the respondent pays the tax and national insurance due to HMRC, payment of the net amount will meet the judgment debt. | Upheld | — | £1,125 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant for annual leave and ordered payment of £1,000.00. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,125
- 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.