Claimant v Total Home Delivery Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal determined under rule 22 that the claimant had suffered unauthorised deductions from wages under ERA 1996 s.13. The respondent failed to present a response and the claimant provided sufficient information to enable the tribunal to make a determination in his favour.
The tribunal found the claim for breach of contract well founded. The claimant's statutory notice period was one week, which was not paid by the respondent. The respondent failed to defend the claim by not submitting a response.
Facts
The claimant Brian David Pickering brought claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract for notice pay against Total Home Delivery Limited. The respondent was sent the claim form in accordance with rule 16 but failed to present a response. The claimant provided further information by correspondence to enable the tribunal to determine the claims.
Decision
The tribunal made a rule 22 judgment in favour of the claimant on the papers, without a hearing, due to the respondent's failure to respond. The tribunal found both claims well founded and awarded £1,597.48 for unauthorised deductions and £798.47 for one week's notice pay.
Practical note
Employers who fail to respond to tribunal claims face default judgments on the papers, with awards determined based on the claimant's uncontested evidence.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3307672/2025
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Hearing type
- rule 21
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No