Case 1303317/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Menear v Shedrite Sheds Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) Heard: by CVP in Birmingham — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303317/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Menear
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Shedrite Sheds Limited, failed to engage with the proceedings and no ET3 response was filed. The only communication from the respondent was an email saying the company had entered voluntary liquidation, and the tribunal amended the respondent’s name accordingly. The claimant also failed to attend the hearing on 9 February 2023. A Rule 21 letter had been served on the respondent before the hearing.
Employment Judge Codd considered whether a default judgment could be entered, but on the written material alone the tribunal could not determine what, if any, sums were properly payable or over what period. The claimant had given an hourly rate and a figure claimed, but there was no breakdown between unpaid wages, overtime pay, notice pay and holiday pay, and the tribunal had only limited detail about the end date of employment and no clarification as to when the claimant was last paid.
Because the tribunal could not identify the proper sums due, it concluded that it was not appropriate to make any award without further information from the claimant. The claim for unpaid wages, overtime pay, notice pay and holiday pay was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dismissed the claim for unpaid wages and overtime pay because, on the written information before it, it could not determine what sums were properly payable or the period to which they related. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay element was dismissed because the claimant had not clarified how the overall figure was made up or when he was last paid, so the tribunal could not assess any entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The holiday pay claim was dismissed with the rest of the claim; the tribunal did not have enough information to separate or quantify any outstanding holiday entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.