Case 6001953/2024 · Employment Tribunal
S Harris-Nielsen v MJP Electrical Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001953/2024
- Decision date
- 18 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Harris-Nielsen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 11 May 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £622.02 net. It further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, ordering damages of £622.02 net, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, ordering payment of £488.90 gross.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,732.94 in total. The hearing listed for 9 January 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; awarded £622.02 net. | Upheld | — | £622 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £622.02 net awarded. | Upheld | — | £622 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay claimant's holiday entitlement; £488.90 gross awarded. Layer 1 gov.uk listing categorised this under Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £489 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,733
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.