Case 1602369/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr William Christopher Summers v Seiont Manor Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1602369/2019
- Decision date
- 7 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr William Christopher Summers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Brace gave judgment in the absence of an ET3 response form from Seiont Manor Limited. The judgment records that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination and that the tribunal acted under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal upheld Mr William Christopher Summers' claims for unpaid wages and notice pay. It awarded unpaid wages of £3,753.87 gross and notice pay of £1,586.76 net, producing a total award of £5,340.63.
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. No separate award for holiday pay is itemised in the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment recorded this as unpaid wages, gross. | Upheld | — | £3,754 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Judgment recorded this as notice pay, net. | Upheld | — | £1,587 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,341
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal's 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.