Claimant v Pierpoint International (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent failed to submit a response in time and made no application for extension. Under Rule 22, the tribunal found the complaint well-founded. The respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages totalling £3,839.25 gross during the period 6 January 2025 to 20 February 2025.
The respondent failed to submit a response in time. Under Rule 22, the tribunal found the complaint well-founded. The respondent failed to pay expenses of £33.50 net for mobile phone costs and failed to make pension payments of 3% of gross pay totalling £135.27.
Facts
The claimant brought claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract against his employer. The respondent failed to submit a response within the required time period and made no application for an extension of time. The claimant claimed unpaid wages of £3,839.25 gross for the period 6 January 2025 to 20 February 2025, unpaid mobile phone expenses of £33.50, and unpaid pension contributions of £135.27.
Decision
Under Employment Tribunal Rule 22, which applies when a respondent fails to present a response, the tribunal found both complaints well-founded. The tribunal awarded the claimant £4,008.02 in total, comprising the unpaid wages grossed up for tax purposes, and damages for breach of contract relating to the unpaid expenses and pension contributions.
Practical note
When a respondent fails to submit a response to an employment tribunal claim, Rule 22 allows the tribunal to determine the claim without a hearing and find in favour of the claimant on liability, moving straight to determining remedy.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 6015994/2025
- Decision date
- 30 September 2025
- Hearing type
- default judgment
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No