Cases3300404/2024

Claimant v Heath Electrical Services MK Limited (In Liquidation)

13 March 2025Before Employment Judge M WarrenWatfordon papers

Outcome

Partly successful£1,991

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time and the claim was determined under Rule 21.

Wrongful Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. The respondent failed to defend the claim and damages were awarded representing one week's pay.

Holiday Paysucceeded

The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement which was half a day accrued as at the date of termination of employment.

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The claimant did not have 2 years' service and was therefore not entitled to claim unfair dismissal. The claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Facts

Mr Khan brought claims against Heath Electrical Services MK Limited which was in liquidation. The respondent failed to present a valid response to the claim. The claimant had been dismissed and alleged unauthorised deductions from wages, wrongful dismissal in respect of notice, and unpaid holiday pay. He did not have two years' qualifying service for unfair dismissal.

Decision

The tribunal made a default judgment under Rule 21 in the claimant's favour for unlawful deductions from wages (£1,038.96), wrongful dismissal notice pay (£865.80), and holiday pay (£86.58), totalling £1,991.34. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient service.

Practical note

Default judgments under Rule 21 allow tribunals to determine claims on the papers where respondents fail to defend, but claimants must still meet jurisdictional requirements such as qualifying service for unfair dismissal.

Award breakdown

Notice pay£866
Holiday pay£87
Unpaid wages£1,039

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.13ERA 1996 s.86

Case details

Case number
3300404/2024
Decision date
13 March 2025
Hearing type
rule 21
Hearing days
Classification
default

Respondent

Sector
construction
Represented
No

Employment details

Claimant representation

Represented
No