Case 1803565/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Salim v Veternum Beds Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803565/2019
- Decision date
- 13 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Y Salim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Y Salim brought claims against Veternum Beds Ltd for unfair dismissal, holiday pay, unauthorised deductions from wages, and breach of contract in respect of notice pay. Notice of the claim was sent to the respondent on 2 August 2019, but no response was presented.
This was a Rule 21 judgment. The Employment Judge recorded that the time for presenting a response had expired, no valid response had been filed, and, on the information before the tribunal, the claims succeeded. The judgment does not set out further factual findings or legal analysis beyond that default position.
The tribunal therefore upheld all four claims and directed that the hearing listed on 22 November 2019 be converted to a Remedy Hearing for the successful claims. No monetary award was fixed in this judgment, so the remedy remained to be determined at that later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment: no response was presented and the claim succeeded on the information before the Employment Judge. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment: no response was presented and the claim succeeded on the information before the Employment Judge. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Listed in the judgment as 'unauthorised deductions from wages'; succeeded under Rule 21 with no response from the respondent. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Expressly pleaded as breach of contract - notice pay; succeeded under Rule 21 with remedy to be determined later. | Upheld | — | — |
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.