Case 2204200/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A Farah v Eroth-Mitie Property Maintenance Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204200/2021
- Decision date
- 11 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A Farah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Regional Employment Judge Wade therefore decided the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and the listed hearing on 15 October 2021 did not take place.
On the papers, the tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to Mr. A Farah. It ordered payment of a total of £10,688.30.
The award was made up of £8,593.75 in unpaid wages, £925.80 in holiday allowance for 7 days, £1,031.25 in car allowance, and £137.50 for expenses incurred working from home. The tribunal also directed the respondent to account to HMRC for the tax and national insurance due on the relevant amount.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent did not file an ET3. The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages and made an award comprising unpaid wages, holiday allowance for 7 days, car allowance, and expenses incurred working from home, with a direction to account to HMRC for tax and national insurance on the relevant amount. | Upheld | — | £10,688 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,688
- 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.