Case 1600157/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ellaway v Vale Sports Arena — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600157/2018
- Decision date
- 3 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ellaway
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Beard rejected the respondent's ET3 response form because it had been received out of time. The judgment says there was sufficient material before the judge to make a proper determination under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for unpaid wages in the sum of £7,780.54 and the claim for unpaid holiday pay in the sum of £2,369.19. The judgment does not set out any contested factual findings beyond the procedural point that the response was late and rejected.
The total awarded was £10,149.73. The judgment also states that the claimant is responsible for any income tax and employee national insurance contributions due on the sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records this as 'Unpaid Wages' and upholds it after rejecting the respondent's ET3 response as out of time. | Upheld | — | £7,781 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records this as 'Unpaid Holiday Pay' and upholds it after rejecting the respondent's ET3 response as out of time. | Upheld | — | £2,369 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,150
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.