Case 1600067/2020 · Employment Tribunal
NO ATTENDANCE FOR THE v WFT Pub Company Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600067/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
NO ATTENDANCE FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAmber Verona worked for WFT Pub Company Limited as a chef from 21 August 2018 until 16 September 2019. Neither party attended the hearing. After the claimant said she was unable to attend because of ill health and wished the case to proceed, the tribunal determined the claims in both parties’ absence under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. On the material before it, the tribunal accepted on the balance of probabilities that the claimant was an employee, that she had not been paid holiday pay owed to her, that she was not permitted to work during her notice period but was not paid in lieu of notice, and that she had never been given written particulars of employment.
The tribunal held that the failure to pay accrued holiday pay and notice pay amounted to unlawful deductions from wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,224 for that claim, comprising £1,037 holiday pay and £187 notice pay. The tribunal also found a breach of section 1 ERA 1996 for failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment.
For the written particulars claim, the tribunal applied section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 and awarded the equivalent of two weeks’ pay, calculated at £374 on the basis of a weekly wage of £187. It rejected the claimant’s request for a four-week award because the only evidence was the ET1 and there was insufficient evidence that it was just and equitable to increase the award. The total judgment sum was £1,598.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that failure to pay accrued holiday pay and a week’s notice pay amounted to unlawful deductions from wages under section 13 ERA 1996. The operative order awards £1,224, made up of £1,037 holiday pay and £187 notice pay. Paragraph 11 of the reasons refers to £1,087 holiday pay, but the order and total award use £1,037; the award has been taken from the operative order. | Upheld | — | £1,224 |
| Other | This was the claim that the respondent failed to give written particulars of employment, contrary to section 1 ERA 1996. The tribunal awarded two weeks’ pay under section 38 EA 2002, declining to increase it to four weeks because there was insufficient evidence that such an uplift would be just and equitable. | Upheld | — | £374 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,598
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 1 ERA 1996
- section 24 ERA 1996
- section 38 EA 2002
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.