Case 6020084/2025 · Employment Tribunal
B Southern v The Pit King Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020084/2025
- Decision date
- 29 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
Parties
2 namedClaimant
B Southern
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Dunlop determined this Rule 22 default judgment after the respondent (The Pit King Limited) failed to present a valid response on time. The claim was presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 29 May 2025.
The Judge found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded for the period 31 March to 6 April 2025 (£170.94) and for two hours of work collecting shutter lock and keys (£24.42), plus statutory sick pay of £356.25 for 16 April to 4 May 2025. The breach of contract complaint regarding notice pay was upheld with damages of £366.30 (one week's statutory notice), plus £4 of unpaid expenses (bus fare). The complaint of holiday pay was upheld for 16.2 hours of accrued but untaken leave at £12.21 per hour (£197.81).
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a total of £1,119.72. No award was made for additional compensation described by the claimant, the Tribunal having no jurisdiction to award such compensation in the circumstances.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | £195.36 unpaid wages 31 March-6 April 2025 (£170.94) plus 2 hours' work (£24.42); plus £356.25 statutory sick pay for 16 April-4 May 2025. | Upheld | — | £552 |
| Breach of contract | £366.30 statutory notice pay (one week's notice damages) plus £4 unpaid expenses (bus fare). | Upheld | — | £370 |
| Holiday pay | 16.2 hours of statutory holiday pay at £12.21/hour. | Upheld | — | £198 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,120
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.