Claimant v Total Home Delivery Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claim well founded under ERA 1996 s.13 in a rule 22 default judgment. The respondent failed to present a response and the claimant provided sufficient information for the tribunal to determine that unauthorised deductions totalling £1040 net had been made from wages.
The tribunal found the claim for notice pay well founded. The claimant was entitled to one week's statutory notice which was not paid. In the absence of a response from the respondent, the tribunal awarded £520 net representing one week's notice pay.
The claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service under s.155 ERA 1996. The claimant also failed to respond to the tribunal's strike out warning letter dated 16 January 2025.
Facts
Mr Turner brought claims against Total Home Delivery Limited for unlawful deductions from wages, notice pay, and redundancy pay. The respondent failed to present a response to the claims. The claimant had worked for less than two years and was entitled to one week's statutory notice which was not paid. He was also owed £1040 in unpaid wages.
Decision
The tribunal entered a default judgment under rule 22, awarding the claimant £1040 for unlawful deductions and £520 for notice pay. The redundancy pay claim was struck out as the claimant lacked the required two years' service and failed to respond to a warning letter about this issue.
Practical note
In default judgment cases, tribunals can still strike out claims that lack jurisdictional foundation (such as insufficient service for redundancy claims) even when other claims succeed.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303873/2025
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Hearing type
- rule 21
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No