Case 2201376/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Language House London Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201376/2020
- Decision date
- 2 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Adkin therefore determined the claim on the papers under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, without a hearing. The tribunal considered the ET1 and decided that the respondent had unlawfully deducted the claimant’s wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, had failed to pay notice pay in breach of contract, and had failed to pay holiday pay.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,320.00 in respect of unlawful deduction from wages, £525.00 in unpaid notice pay, and £187.50 in unpaid holiday pay. The unlawful deduction and holiday pay awards were ordered to be paid net of tax and national insurance. The total monetary award was £2,032.50.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent unlawfully deducted the claimant’s wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered £1,320.00, to be paid net of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,320 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay notice pay in breach of contract and ordered £525.00 unpaid notice pay. | Upheld | — | £525 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay holiday pay and ordered £187.50, to be paid net of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £188 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,033
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.