Case 6015148/2025 · Employment Tribunal
N J Baerselman Le Gros v Barkers (cambridge) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015148/2025
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
N J Baerselman Le Gros
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South East Region Employment Tribunal on 28 April 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that a decision could properly be made on the claim, or part of it, without a hearing.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £11,913.84 in unpaid wages and £1,154.40 in unpaid pension contributions, giving a total of £13,068.24. The claimant's claims for holiday pay and breach of contract were dismissed on the basis that the claimant's employment had not been terminated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 22 default determination after respondent failed to file a valid response in time. Award covers £11,913.84 unpaid wages and £1,154.40 unpaid pension contributions, totalling £13,068.24. | Upheld | — | £13,068 |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed on the basis that the claimant's employment had not been terminated. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed on the basis that the claimant's employment had not been terminated. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,068
- 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.