Case 1600923/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Joshua Thomas v Wrexham Demolition & Dismantling Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600923/2019
- Decision date
- 16 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Joshua Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Harfield determined the claim on 2 September 2019 in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent, Wrexham Demolition & Dismantling Limited. The judge recorded that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination and proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for arrears of pay, notice pay, and holiday pay. The amounts awarded were £880.00 gross for arrears of pay, £440.00 for one week statutory notice pay, and £717.20 gross for holiday pay.
The total award was £2,037.20. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax and employee national insurance due. It also states that no award was made for accountants' fees because the tribunal did not consider that it had jurisdiction to make such an award in an arrears of pay claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay (gross) awarded in full under the Rule 21 default judgment. | Upheld | — | £880 |
| Breach of contract | One week statutory notice pay awarded in full under the Rule 21 default judgment. | Upheld | — | £440 |
| Holiday pay | Gross holiday pay awarded in full under the Rule 21 default judgment. | Upheld | — | £717 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,037
- 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.