Case 2202293/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Seed Property Consultants Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202293/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JL Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file any ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge JL Wade therefore decided 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 held that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages, notice pay, holiday pay and expenses to the claimant, and that she sustained financial loss as a result. The hearing listed for 11 November 2019 was vacated because judgment had been given.
The order required the respondent to pay £5,000 gross wages, £1,151 gross holiday pay, £3,288 gross notice pay, £96.89 expenses, and £80 compensation for financial loss under Employment Rights Act section 24. The judgment did not allocate those sums between separate heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment did not separate the award between claim heads. It ordered payment of notice pay and expenses, among other sums, but did not allocate those amounts to a distinct contractual head. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages and holiday pay, and ordered those sums together with an additional amount for financial loss under Employment Rights Act section 24. The award was not split by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,616
- 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.