Case 1601516/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Thomas v Mr Geraint Jones and Go Sport and Leisure — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601516/2019
- Decision date
- 13 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs V Thomas brought claims against Mr Geraint Jones and Go Sport & Leisure. Neither respondent attended and no ET3 response form was filed. Employment Judge S Davies therefore determined the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal upheld claims for unpaid wages of £424.06 gross and unpaid holiday pay of £94.42 gross. The judgment records that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on those sums.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment and awarded £224.00, described as the minimum amount of two weeks' pay. The judgment does not set out any further reasoning beyond the Rule 21 default position.
The total award was £742.48.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondents under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £424 |
| Holiday pay | Upheld in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondents under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £94 |
| Other | Failure to provide written particulars of employment; tribunal awarded the minimum amount of 2 weeks' pay. Upheld in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondents under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £224 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £742
- 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.