Case 2202719/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v E-Cargobikes.com Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202719/2020
- Decision date
- 4 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JL Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge JL Wade 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 judgment records that the tribunal considered the ET1 and was satisfied that a determination could properly be made in that way.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant wages and accrued holiday pay. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £11,249.94 gross. The judgment does not split that figure between the wages and holiday pay elements, and it gives no further reasoning beyond the rule 21 determination and the finding of non-payment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages and accrued holiday pay. The award was not split between the two heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages and accrued holiday pay. The award was not split between the two heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,250
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21
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.