Case 2202941/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Belgravia Mews Hotels Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202941/2019
- Decision date
- 7 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Joffe JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Joffe considered the ET1 and decided the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, so the listed hearing on 8 January 2020 did not take place.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant wages and holiday pay. It ordered payment of net wages for March 2019 in the sum of £2,107.99 and accrued holiday pay of £943.57 under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1999.
The tribunal did not award the £650 Job Centre loan sum itself. It noted that the claimant had not indicated that he had paid interest or other charges on that loan, and that the loan amount did not represent financial loss sustained as a result of the deductions from wages.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; the tribunal ordered payment of net wages for March 2019. | Upheld | — | £2,108 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as accrued holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1999. | Upheld | — | £944 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,052
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1999
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.