Case 2200151/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Boulestin St James’s Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200151/2020
- Decision date
- 18 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JL Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge JL Wade therefore determined the claim on the ET1 under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, without a hearing. The judgment records that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant wages and holiday pay.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay unpaid wages of £1,563.33 and holiday pay of £1,161.60, and to account to HMRC for tax and national insurance as necessary. The listed hearings on 12 May and 7-9 October were vacated and the parties were told not to attend.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant and orders payment of unpaid wages in this amount. | Upheld | — | £1,563 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent unlawfully failed to pay holiday pay to the claimant and orders payment in this amount. | Upheld | — | £1,162 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,725
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.