Case 2203548/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Olowogboye v Pridegreen Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203548/2019
- Decision date
- 17 March 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. Employment Judge JL Wade therefore considered the ET1 and, under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing. The judgment records that the hearing listed for 6 February 2020 would not take place and that the parties should not attend.
On the papers, the tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant wages and holiday pay. The judgment does not set out any contested evidence or further reasoning, because the matter was determined in default under rule 21.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant compensation of £1,200. The judgment does not split that sum between wages and holiday pay, and it records no other remedy components.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages; the award was not broken down between wages and holiday pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal said the respondent unlawfully failed to pay holiday pay; the award was not broken down between wages and holiday pay. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,200
- across all upheld claims
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.