Case 6011601/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Walden v APM Distribution Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6011601/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Walden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 13 September 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in 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 unfairly dismissed the claimant and ordered a basic award of £1,287.69. It further found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, ordering payment of £3,720.00 gross, and had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, ordering payment of £442.56.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £5,450.25 in total. The hearing listed for 3 January 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Determined under Rule 21 following respondent's failure to present a valid response. Basic award only; no compensatory award stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,288 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; £3,720.00 gross ordered. | Upheld | — | £3,720 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement; ordered to pay £442.56. Layer 1 gov.uk listing referenced Working Time Regulations; the judgment phrases this as failure to pay holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £443 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,450
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,288
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.