Cases6010464/2024

Claimant v Moduloc Control Systems Limited

22 April 2025Before Employment Judge AnstisSouth Easton papers

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£3,490

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal determined under rule 21 that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and awarded £1,073.76 net.

Wrongful Dismissalsucceeded

The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal determined under rule 21 that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £991.04.

Redundancy Paysucceeded

The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal determined under rule 21 that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £743.37.

Holiday Paysucceeded

The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal determined under rule 21 that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £681.34.

Facts

Mr Wilson brought claims against Moduloc Control Systems Limited for unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract in respect of notice, redundancy payment, and unpaid holiday entitlement. The claim was filed on 3 September 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time.

Decision

Employment Judge Anstis determined the claims under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, which allows determination where no valid response has been presented. All four claims succeeded and the claimant was awarded a total of £3,489.51 comprising unpaid wages, notice pay, redundancy payment, and holiday pay.

Practical note

Default judgments under rule 21 can result in substantial awards where respondents fail to engage with tribunal proceedings, emphasising the importance of filing a timely response.

Award breakdown

Notice pay£991
Holiday pay£681
Redundancy pay£743
Unpaid wages£1,074

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure rule 21ERA 1996

Case details

Case number
6010464/2024
Decision date
22 April 2025
Hearing type
default judgment
Hearing days
Classification
default

Respondent

Sector
technology
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No