Case 2200287/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Eclectic Gaming Solutions Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200287/2021
- Decision date
- 5 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout RULE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to file ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Stout decided the claim could properly be determined without a hearing on the basis of the ET1 and further documents filed by the claimant, including his contract of employment, bank statement and other correspondence.
The tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to Mr R Bellamy and/or, alternatively, had breached his contract of employment. It also recorded that a claim arose or was outstanding on termination of the claimant’s employment. No discrimination, unfair dismissal, or other separate claim was recorded in the judgment text.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mr Bellamy wages/contractual pay of £20,737 and to account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due. The judgment does not allocate the monetary sum between the alternative legal bases, so the award is recorded as a single total rather than split per claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant; the award was not split between alternative legal bases. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal stated in the alternative that the respondent had breached the claimant’s contract of employment and that a claim arose or was outstanding on termination; the award was not split between alternative legal bases. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,737
- across all upheld claims
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.