Case 6010464/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Wilson v Moduloc Control Systems Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010464/2024
- Decision date
- 8 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South East Employment Tribunal on 3 September 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Anstis determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure on the basis of the claim as presented.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages (£1,073.76 net), that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice (damages of £991.04), that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £743.37, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement (£681.34).
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £3,489.51 in total. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Anstis on 22 April 2025 and sent to the parties on 8 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21/22 default judgment: respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £1,074 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £991 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed by reason of redundancy; statutory redundancy payment awarded. | Upheld | — | £743 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement under the Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £681 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,490
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.