Case 1600531/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Evans v Office Care Services Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 1600531/2018
- Decision date
- 9 August 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Davies JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Davies entered judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent did not present an ET3 response form. The judgment states that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to enable a proper determination to be made.
The tribunal upheld two monetary claims. First, it upheld a breach of contract claim for unpaid notice and awarded £112.50. Second, it upheld an unpaid wages claim and awarded £1,012.25. The judgment does not break down those sums further.
The judgment also records that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages. The hearing listed for 13 August 2018 was postponed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records this as 'Breach of Contract - unpaid notice' and awards £112.50. | Upheld | — | £113 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records this as 'Unpaid Wages' and awards £1,012.25. | Upheld | — | £1,012 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,125
- 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.