Case 2204441/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Heaton v Ably Resources Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204441/2020
- Decision date
- 10 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Heaton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined at a remote hearing before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone. The judgment was recorded as a judgment by consent. The respondent agreed to pay the claimant £3,886.52 gross for wages due for the period between 1 and 12 April 2020, and £6,153.66 gross for 19 days of accrued but untaken holiday.
No contested findings of fact or legal analysis were recorded in the written reasons. The judgment states that the parties did not object to the remote hearing format and that a face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable during the Coronavirus pandemic restrictions. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The remainder of the claimant's claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not allocate the agreed sums to any broader compensatory framework, and no separate award components such as interest, basic award, or compensatory award were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the respondent agreed to pay the claimant £3,886.52 gross for wages due between 1 and 12 April 2020. | Upheld | — | £3,887 |
| Holiday pay | By consent, the respondent agreed to pay the claimant £6,153.66 gross for 19 days of accrued but untaken holiday. | Upheld | — | £6,154 |
| Other | The remainder of the claimant's claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,040
- 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.