Case 2203547/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Nathan Noel v Be Rota Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2203547/2019
- Decision date
- 20 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nathan Noel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNathan Noel was employed by Be Rota Ltd, a hospitality agency, from 19 June 2018 and remained employed at the date of the judgment. He presented a claim received on 19 September 2019 after ACAS conciliation, asserting that he had been underpaid on various shifts between 16 May 2019 and 3 July 2019, with the total underpayment stated as £14.40.
The Respondent's response, submitted on 20 November 2019, indicated that it did not contest the claim. Employment Judge Stout was satisfied that there was sufficient information in the claim form to support the claim and entered judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that the Respondent unlawfully deducted £14.40 from the Claimant's wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of that sum within 14 days. The full merits hearing listed for 14 January 2020 was vacated because the proceedings were concluded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered on the papers under Rule 21 after the Respondent stated it did not contest the claim. | Upheld | — | £14 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21(2) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.