Case 1806770/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Did not attend v Mr Witty, director — 2020

Case reference: 1806770/2019
Decision date: 17 January 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cox Representation
Venue: Leeds

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Did not attend

Respondent

Mr Witty, director

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant presented his claim on 14 November 2019 alleging that the respondent owed him notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments. In his claim form he said he was seeking payment for work completed from 10 September to 26 September 2019 at an agreed day rate of £125, and he gave figures of £2,500 and £3,600. The tribunal sent notice of hearing to the email address provided by the claimant, and on 17 January 2020 it proceeded in his absence under Rule 47 after he did not attend.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	Notice pay claim. The tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence that the claimant had been dismissed without notice, and it noted email evidence suggesting he had left without notice.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim for arrears of pay / payment for work done. The tribunal could not clarify the basis of the amount claimed and noted documentary evidence that some remuneration had already been paid.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	Holiday pay claim. The claimant did not attend and provided no details of the holiday pay said to be due, so the tribunal was not satisfied the claim was made out.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.