Case 2203980/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v TAS London — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203980/2019
- Decision date
- 10 February 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 determined the case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ET1 and without a hearing. The tribunal found that the respondent had acted unlawfully in breach of contract and ordered it to pay the claimant £750 by way of compensation.
The judgment also stated that the hearing listed for 11 February 2020 would not take place. It did not make any separate finding on unpaid wages. Instead, it invited the claimant, if he wished to claim compensation for unpaid wages in addition, to write to the tribunal by 25 February 2020 setting out exactly what he said was owed, gross and net, and why.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent filed no ET3, and the tribunal determined the case on the ET1 and available material without a hearing. The judgment found that the respondent had acted unlawfully in breach of contract and ordered compensation of £750. The judgment did not determine any unpaid wages claim; it only stated that, if the claimant wished to pursue compensation for unpaid wages in addition, he should write to the tribunal by 25 February 2020 setting out what was owed gross and net and why. | Upheld | — | £750 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £750
- 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.