[2026] EAT 45Appeal allowedPartial success

Mr S Jackson

v Hypervolt Ltd

5 March 2026·Employment Appeal Tribunal·England & Wales·Employment Judge Overton

Respondent

Mr S Jackson

All cases →

Decision date

5 March 2026

Tribunal

Employment Appeal Tribunal

Jurisdiction

England & Wales

Judge

Employment Judge Overton

Case Summary

The claimant was awarded £2,000 for unauthorized deductions from wages and was also found to have been unfairly dismissed, with the remedy to be determined at a subsequent hearing.

Why this outcome?

Default — respondent did not respond

The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, allowing the tribunal to proceed under Rule 21 and make determinations on the claimant's claims. The tribunal found the respondent made unauthorized wage deductions and dismissed the claimant unfairly, with remedy to be determined separately.

Related guide

Unfair dismissal cases won in the UK

Compare this judgment with other successful unfair dismissal cases and controlled win reasons.

Open examples

Related Cases

Decision Text

Full PDF

Judgment approved by the Court Hypervolt Ltd v Jackson @ EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 45 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 45 Case No: EA-2024-001030-AS EA-2024-001031-AS EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 5 th March 2026 Before: ANDREW HOCHHAUSER KC DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: HYPERVOLT LIMITED Appellant - and - MR S JACKSON Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr R Smith (Instructed by Peninsula Business Services Ltd) for the Appellant The Respondent appeared as Litigant in Person Hearing date: 5 th March 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the Court Hypervolt Ltd v Jackson @ EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 45 SUMMARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE There is a mandatory requirement pursuant to rule 72(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 (the “ET Rules”) for an employment judge to determine whether there are reasonable prospects of a judgment being varied or revoked before seeking the other party’s response and the views of the parties as to whether the matter can be determined without a hearing, potentially giving any provisional view, and deciding how the reconsideration application will be determined for the purposes of rule 72(2). The Appellant appealed against the refusal of the Employment Tribunal (the “ET”) to extend time to submit a response and for reconsideration of a decision issued on 6 March 2024 under Rule 21 of the ET Rules.

Something doesn't look right?

Report a wrong claim type, outcome, summary, or award.