Case 1602303/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Hooper v Thomas Motor Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602303/2019
- Decision date
- 22 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Hooper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge P Davies dealt with the case under Rule 21 because the respondent had not filed an ET3 response form. The judgment records that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to determine the claim in the respondent's absence.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unpaid wages claim and awarded £1,421.00 gross. The judgment does not set out any disputed factual findings or a separate breakdown for the award beyond that single sum.
The judgment also states 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. No separate holiday pay award is quantified in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that, in the absence of an ET3 response and under Rule 21, the tribunal upheld 'Unpaid Wages: £1,421.00 (gross)'. It also contains a standard tax/NIC note referring to unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay, but no separate holiday pay sum is identified. | Upheld | — | £1,421 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,421
- 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.