Case 6014923/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. John Cooper and v MKDJLW1 Limited ISSUED AT: London Central DEFAULT — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014923/2024
- Decision date
- 5 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. John Cooper and
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a default judgment under Rule 22 because the respondent failed to present an ET3 response and had no extension of time to respond. It found that all of the claimant's claims were presented in time and met the jurisdictional requirements. The judgment records that the claimant had 8 years' continuous service after a TUPE transfer in March 2024.
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned with immediate effect on 16 September 2024 and that the resignation amounted to a constructive dismissal in accordance with s136(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 by reason of redundancy. It also ordered a redundancy payment of £5,144.00. In addition, it awarded £6,725.36 gross for unlawful deduction of wages under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996, £8,374.98 gross for 3 months' notice pay as damages for breach of contract, and £1,866.64 gross for 8 months' pension payments not paid into the pension scheme as a further breach of contract.
The tribunal further ordered £2,576.92 for failure to provide a section 1 statement of terms and conditions of employment, described as a breach of section 38 Employment Act 2002. It awarded £1,288.46 gross for 10 days' accrued but untaken annual leave under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and £190 for a guarantee payment under s28 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also awarded £6,802.01 for failure to provide pay statements under s8 Employment Rights Act 1996, described as an aggregate of unnotified deductions of wages, guarantee payment and annual leave for the 13 weeks before termination. The total payable was £32,968.37, with a direction that any tax due be accounted for to HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant resigned with immediate effect on 16 September 2024 and that the resignation amounted to a constructive dismissal under s136(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 by reason of redundancy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross award for unlawful deduction of wages under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £6,725 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay of 3 months' wages awarded as damages for breach of contract at common law. | Upheld | — | £8,375 |
| Breach of contract | Award for 8 months' pension payments not paid into the pension scheme, described in the judgment as a breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £1,867 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment calculated by reference to 8 years' service and the statutory cap weekly rate of £643. | Upheld | — | £5,144 |
| Other | Four weeks' pay for failure to provide a section 1 statement of terms and conditions of employment, awarded under section 38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £2,577 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £32,968
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- s136(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- common law breach of contract
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s28 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s8 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.