Case 2202087/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Wilson Associates London Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2202087/2021
- Decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 grounds of resistance. Employment Judge E Burns 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 claimant, Jese Medina Suarez, said he had been employed until 26 February 2021 and earned £15,666.67 gross per month, equivalent to £3,615.39 per week.
The tribunal recorded the claimant's account that the respondent had failed to pay him one month’s salary for February 2021 and three days’ holiday pay. On that basis, it ordered the respondent to pay £15,666.67 for the salary arrears and £2,169.23 for 0.6 weeks’ holiday pay. The total award was £17,835.90 gross, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. No separate findings on any other heads of claim or remedy components were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid salary for February 2021; the claimant said he was employed until 26 February 2021 and was owed one month’s gross salary. | Upheld | — | £15,667 |
| Holiday pay | 3 days’ holiday pay, calculated by the tribunal as 0.6 weeks at the weekly rate of £3,615.39. | Upheld | — | £2,169 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,836
- 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.