Case 1601950/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Matthew Shenton v Park House 20 Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601950/2019
- Decision date
- 12 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Matthew Shenton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claim in the absence of an ET3 response form from Park House 20 Limited. Employment Judge Brace recorded that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination and therefore proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The only claim expressly upheld in the judgment was unlawful deduction of wages. The tribunal awarded the claimant £997.00 in respect of that claim. No separate awards were identified for any other head of claim, and no discrimination, dismissal, or other substantive findings are recorded in the judgment text provided.
The judgment also 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. The award was sent to the parties on 12 January 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the claim in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent, having sufficient material before it to determine the case under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £997 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £997
- 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.