Case 1601099/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jamie-Lee Jason Last v Chameleon Accident Repair Centre — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601099/2021
- Decision date
- 8 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grubb
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jamie-Lee Jason Last
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Jamie-Lee Jason Last brought complaints of unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract against Chameleon Accident Repair Centre. He said he had not been paid for 12.8 days of untaken holiday, April 2021 arrears of £244, sums from June to 16 August 2021, and two weeks' unpaid notice pay. The respondent did not file a response and neither side attended the remote hearing before Employment Judge Grubb on 31 March 2022.
The tribunal had the ET1, the contract of employment, and payslips from November and March 2021, but it did not have payslips for April to August 2021 showing what had been paid or not paid. It also noted that the holiday pay claim depended in part on an assertion that the employer had agreed holiday carry-over, which needed further evidence from the claimant. The tribunal said it still had to be satisfied that it was more probable than not that the sums claimed were due and unpaid.
The tribunal considered whether to postpone the hearing under r. 30A ETPR and the overriding objective, but refused to adjourn. It noted that the claimant had known about the hearing since 13 September 2021, only raised attendance difficulties at very short notice, and did not attend even briefly to explain his position or give assurance that he would attend if the case were relisted. It also considered r. 47 ETPR and concluded that, whichever course it took, the result would be dismissal because the available evidence was too limited to prove the claims.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim. Its central reason was that the documentary material before it did not establish that wages, holiday pay, or notice pay remained outstanding, and the claimant was not present to provide the additional evidence the tribunal said it needed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dismissed the s.13 ERA 1996 complaint because the evidence was insufficient to show that the claimed unpaid holiday pay, arrears, or notice pay were probably outstanding. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint was dismissed together with the wages complaint; the judgment did not record any separate contractual remedy or separate factual finding on liability. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s. 13 ERA 1996
- r. 30A(2)(a) ETPR
- r. 2 ETPR overriding objective
- r. 47 ETPR
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.