Case 6003369/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A. Aspinall v Pangaea Biosciences Ltd. — 2024
- Case reference
- 6003369/2024
- Decision date
- 16 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A. Aspinall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made on the papers.
The claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The tribunal found that the respondent had not paid the claimant his final month's salary of £5,833 gross, a £500 gross car allowance for that month, or two months' employer pension contributions totalling £220.14.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £6,553.47 in total. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for accounting to HMRC for any tax payable on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal found unpaid final month salary of £5,833 gross, £500 gross car allowance, and two months' employer pension contributions of £220.14 in total. | Upheld | — | £6,553 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,553
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.