Case 2201916/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v PR9 Network Ltd and PR9 Holdings Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201916/2019
- Decision date
- 12 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JL Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe first and second respondents did not file ET3 grounds of resistance. Having considered the ET1, Employment Judge JL Wade decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondents had jointly and severally unlawfully failed to pay the claimant wages, holiday pay and notice pay. The judgment does not break down the sum awarded between those heads of claim.
The tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the claimant £11,153.83 in total. The hearing listed for 15 November 2019 was not to take place and the parties were told not to attend.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The rule 21 judgment found the respondents jointly and severally failed to pay wages. The written decision did not split the overall award between the heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The rule 21 judgment found the respondents jointly and severally failed to pay holiday pay. The written decision did not split the overall award between the heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The rule 21 judgment found the respondents jointly and severally failed to pay notice pay. The written decision did not split the overall award between the heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,154
- 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.