Case 1601969/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ian Huw Owen v Rogers Transport (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601969/2019
- Decision date
- 17 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ian Huw Owen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Beard dealt with the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent did not submit an ET3 response form. The judge said there was sufficient material before the tribunal to determine the claims in the respondent's absence.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for holiday pay, notice pay, and unlawful deduction from wages. The amounts awarded were £1,651.78 for holiday pay, £500.00 for notice pay, and £3,029.35 for unlawful deduction from wages, giving a total award of £5,181.13.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,652 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded in the judgment as Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,029 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,181
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.