Case 2203069/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Plitnikaite v MGM Chartered Architects Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203069/2019
- Decision date
- 21 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JL Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms V Plitnikaite, brought a claim against MGM Chartered Architects Ltd. The respondent failed to file ET3 Grounds of Resistance, and Employment Judge JL Wade determined that the claim could properly be decided without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay notice pay to the claimant. No hearing took place, and the judgment records that the listed hearing for 22 January 2020 would not proceed and the parties should not attend.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay compensation of £1,701.05. No further breakdown of that sum is given in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent did not file ET3 Grounds of Resistance, and the tribunal determined the claim on the ET1 without a hearing. | Upheld | — | £1,701 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,701
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,701
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.