Case 2202151/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Hot May Pot Pot Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202151/2020
- Decision date
- 10 August 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 case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 without a hearing.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's account that he had not been paid for 68 hours and 59 minutes at an hourly rate of £8.21. On that basis, it found that the respondent had unlawfully deducted wages within section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of £563.12.
The reasons also record that the tribunal could not determine the further claim for service charges because there was insufficient evidence, and similarly could not determine the holiday claim for the same reason. No separate remedy was awarded for those claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he had not been paid for 68 hours and 59 minutes at £8.21 per hour, producing a deduction of £563.12. | Upheld | — | £563 |
| Other | The tribunal said it could not determine the further claim for service charges because there was insufficient evidence. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal said it could not determine the holiday claim because there was insufficient evidence. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £563
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.