Case 1601601/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Mitchell v Crystal Cleaning Solutions Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601601/2018
- Decision date
- 20 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Mitchell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Beard determined the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent had not presented an ET3 response form. The judge said there was sufficient material before the tribunal to enable a proper determination and upheld the claims recorded in the judgment.
The judgment awarded unpaid holiday pay of £72 x 14 days, which was stated as £1,008 gross. It also awarded loss of earnings of £1,710.00 x 5 months, which the judgment stated as £8,585. The extracted text does not set out any further factual findings or legal analysis beyond those calculations.
The judgment states 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 and unpaid holiday pay. On the figures stated in the judgment, the total award is £9,593.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal upheld the unpaid holiday pay claim in the absence of an ET3 response form and awarded £72 x 14 days. | Upheld | — | £1,008 |
| Other | The tribunal also upheld a loss of earnings award. The extracted text states £1,710.00 x 5 months and then gives the result as £8,585; the multiplication does not match the stated total, so the figure is recorded as written. | Upheld | — | £8,585 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,593
- 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.