Case 6020963/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Bennett v Aussie Ale House Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020963/2025
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Bennett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge determined that the claim could be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing on the merits.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,104.60 net, based on two weeks worked but not paid. The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £2,209.20, based on four weeks notice. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,765.89.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Net sum of £1,104.60 ordered for two weeks worked but not paid. | Upheld | — | £1,105 |
| Breach of contract | Damages of £2,209.20 ordered for dismissal in breach of contract (four weeks notice). | Upheld | — | £2,209 |
| Holiday pay | Sum of £1,765.89 ordered for unpaid holiday entitlement. The gov.uk listing referenced Working Time Regulations; the judgment frames the award as holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,766 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,080
- 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.