Case 2203819/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jefferson Moreno Gonzalez v Notea Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203819/2022
- Decision date
- 9 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jefferson Moreno Gonzalez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 or grounds of resistance. Regional Employment Judge Wade therefore considered the ET1 and issued a judgment under Rule 21 without a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages and holiday pay to Mr Jefferson Moreno Gonzalez.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,940.44 net in unpaid wages and £800 gross in holiday pay, making a total award of £2,740.44. It also ordered the respondent to account to HMRC for any tax and National Insurance due on that sum. The hearing listed for 12 September 2022 was vacated and the parties were told not to attend.
No award was made for the separate £500 stress claim because the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to award this.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay unpaid wages and ordered £1,940.44 net. | Upheld | — | £1,940 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay holiday pay and ordered £800 gross. | Upheld | — | £800 |
| Other | The tribunal made no award on the £500 stress claim, stating that it did not have jurisdiction to award this. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,740
- 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.