Claimant v Edmond Kirkham
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the Second Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. As the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, the claim proceeded under Rule 21/22 and was determined in the claimant's favour.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. The claimant was entitled to one week's notice pay at £515 per week, which was not provided by the Second Respondent.
The complaint of whistleblowing detriment was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
Facts
The claimant brought claims against two respondents for unlawful deduction of wages, wrongful dismissal for breach of notice, and whistleblowing detriment. The claim was filed on 4 September 2024. Neither respondent presented a valid response on time or attended the hearing. The tribunal converted the hearing to a final hearing under Rule 48 and proceeded to determine the claims under the default judgment procedure.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claims against the first respondent, finding that the second respondent (Alfateq Limited) was the claimant's employer. The tribunal upheld the claims for unauthorised deduction of wages (£4,460 gross) and wrongful dismissal for breach of notice (£515), awarding a total of £4,975. The whistleblowing detriment claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
Practical note
Where a respondent fails to submit a response on time and does not attend the hearing, a tribunal may proceed under Rule 21/22 to issue a default judgment determining the claims in the claimant's favour based on the available evidence.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3308995/2024
- Decision date
- 13 August 2025
- Hearing type
- rule 21
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Name
- Edmond Kirkham
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- No
Employment details
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No