Case 1402566/2019 · Employment Tribunal
No Attendance For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1402566/2019
- Decision date
- 31 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No Attendance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Southampton on 31 January 2020 before Employment Judge Rayner. The Claimant asked for an adjournment because of illness, or alternatively for the matter to be determined in her absence. The application for an adjournment was refused and the case was determined in her absence; the Respondent did not attend.
The Tribunal recorded that the Claimant's holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. It then found that the Respondent wrongfully dismissed the Claimant without notice and awarded one week's net pay in lieu of notice of £276.93.
The Tribunal also made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the employer had failed to provide a written statement of the main terms and conditions of employment. That award was four weeks' net pay, assessed at £1,107.72. The total sum ordered to be paid forthwith was £1,384.62.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Tribunal found that the Respondent wrongfully dismissed the Claimant without notice and awarded one week's net pay in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £277 |
| Other | Award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of the main terms and conditions of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,108 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,385
- across all upheld claims
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.