Case 1602370/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Steve Mynes v Seiont Manor Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1602370/2019
- Decision date
- 7 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Steve Mynes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Brace gave judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 2013 in the absence of an ET3 response form from Seiont Manor Limited, finding that there was sufficient material to make a proper determination.
The tribunal upheld Mr Steve Mynes’s claims for unpaid wages and notice pay. It awarded £518.00 gross for unpaid wages and £478.16 net for notice pay, giving a total award of £996.16.
The judgment recorded that the claimant was responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay. No separate holiday pay award was listed in the upheld claims or total.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this head as "Unpaid Wages(gross)". | Upheld | — | £518 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this head as "Notice Pay(net)". | Upheld | — | £478 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £996
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.