Case 2202930/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v London Elizabeth Hotel 2014 Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202930/2019
- Decision date
- 11 February 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. The tribunal therefore determined the case under rule 21 without a hearing, based on the ET1. It found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant wages, holiday pay and sick pay.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to give the claimant a statement of employment particulars in breach of section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. In the absence of any defence, it considered it just and equitable to award the higher amount of award equal to four weeks' pay.
The tribunal ordered payment of wages of 1,715.16, holiday pay of 1,057.48, sick pay of 262.72, and four weeks' pay of 1,050.88. It also directed the respondent to account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award for unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £1,715 |
| Holiday pay | Award for unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,057 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award for unpaid sick pay. | Upheld | — | £263 |
| Other | Award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to give a statement of employment particulars, described as an award equal to four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,051 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,086
- 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.