Claimant v Total Home Delivery Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent did not present a response to the claim. The tribunal determined under Rule 22 that the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under ERA 1996 section 13 was well founded based on information provided by the claimant.
The respondent did not present a response. The tribunal found the claim for breach of contract for notice pay was well founded. The claimant's statutory notice period was six weeks and the claimant was not paid for their notice period.
The respondent did not present a response. The tribunal determined under Rule 22 that the claim for a redundancy payment under ERA 1996 section 135 was well founded, calculated in accordance with ERA 1996 section 162.
Facts
The claimant was employed by Total Home Delivery Limited and was entitled to a six-week statutory notice period. The employment ended by reason of redundancy. The respondent failed to pay the claimant wages owed, notice pay, and redundancy pay. The respondent did not present a response to the tribunal claim.
Decision
The tribunal issued a Rule 22 default judgment in favour of the claimant after the respondent failed to present a response. The tribunal found all three claims well founded and ordered payment of unpaid wages (£1,411.49), notice pay (£2,842.50), and redundancy pay (£3,528.72).
Practical note
Where a respondent fails to present a response, a tribunal can issue a Rule 22 default judgment based on written information from the claimant, awarding all well-founded claims without a hearing.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3311815/2024
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Hearing type
- rule 21
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No