Case 1600024/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Maeve Curtis v Got Beef Canton Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1600024/2018
- Decision date
- 1 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Cadney Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Maeve Curtis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent, Employment Judge P Cadney proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and said there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination. The judgment upheld the claimant’s claims for unpaid wages, unpaid holiday pay and unpaid notice pay.
The sums awarded were £5,722.00 for unpaid wages, £1,135.41 for unpaid holiday pay and £480.76 for unpaid notice. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the sums awarded for unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay. The total award was therefore £7,338.17.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £5,722 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,135 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to this as unpaid notice; no separate legal label is given in the text. | Upheld | — | £481 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,338
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.