Case 6004809/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Alex Hodson v DJK & CC Catering Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6004809/2024
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alex Hodson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Manchester Employment Tribunals on 29 June 2024 and transferred to the South East Region on 18 July 2024. It was sent to the respondent on 18 August 2024, with a response due by 13 September 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge George 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 £3,124.48 gross. This sum comprised 9.07 days of accrued but untaken holiday on termination at £107.55 per day (£975.48), unpaid basic wages of £1,944.00, and unpaid gratuities of £205.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment. Total unauthorised deductions of £3,124.48 gross comprising unpaid basic wages of £1,944.00 and unpaid gratuities of £205.00, plus 9.07 days accrued but untaken holiday at £107.55/day = £975.48. Holiday pay element classified separately under holiday_pay claim. | Upheld | — | £3,124 |
| Holiday pay | 9.07 days holiday accrued and not taken on termination at £107.55 per day = £975.48 gross. Awarded as part of the £3,124.48 total under the unauthorised deductions head. | Upheld | — | £975 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,124
- 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.