Case 6000712/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Robert Geach v AND Miracle Centre Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000712/2024
- Decision date
- 25 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Robert Geach
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal sat in chambers at Plymouth on 15 July 2024 and entered judgment under Rule 21 after the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented. The claimant was Mr Robert Geach and the respondent was Miracle Centre Limited.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s breach of contract claim and ordered the respondent to pay one week’s notice pay in the net sum of £449.00. It also upheld the claim for unlawful deduction from wages and ordered payment of 92 hours’ pay in the gross sum of £1,058.92.
The tribunal further upheld the claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay and ordered payment of 145 hours’ pay in the gross sum of £1,668.95. The judgment records no separate basic award, compensatory award, or interest component, and the total monetary award is the sum of the three payments ordered.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because no valid response had been presented. It ordered one week’s notice pay in the net sum of £449.00. | Upheld | — | £449 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim succeeded and ordered payment of 92 hours’ pay in the gross sum of £1,058.92. | Upheld | — | £1,059 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found accrued but unpaid holiday pay was due and ordered payment of 145 hours’ pay in the gross sum of £1,668.95. | Upheld | — | £1,669 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,177
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.