Case 2202910/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Myrtle Restaurant Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202910/2019
- Decision date
- 6 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JL Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file ET3 grounds of resistance. The tribunal therefore considered the ET1 under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and determined the claim without a hearing.
Employment Judge JL Wade found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant. The judgment records that the claim succeeded on that basis and that the respondent was ordered to pay £107.25 in wages together with £6 for bank charges arising from the failure to pay wages under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The listed hearing for 7 February 2020 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent did not file ET3 grounds of resistance. The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages and ordered £107.25 in wages plus £6 for bank charges arising from that failure under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 24(2). | Upheld | — | £113 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £113
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.