Case 2204757/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Rosa Maria Feliz de Ramon v Amazing Services Group Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204757/2022
- Decision date
- 22 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Rosa Maria Feliz de Ramon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented against Amazing Services Group on 21 July 2022. The respondent did not file an ET3 or Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge E Burns therefore determined the matter on the papers under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, without a hearing. The hearing listed for 28 September 2022 was vacated and the parties were told not to attend.
On the ET1 material, the Tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant wages, holiday pay and notice pay. It ordered payment of £1,433.50 for unpaid wages, £235.45 for holiday pay and £322.10 for notice pay. The total ordered was £1,991.05, and the respondent was also directed to account to HMRC for any tax and National Insurance due on the sum.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages and awards £1,433.50. | Upheld | — | £1,434 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay holiday pay and awards £235.45. | Upheld | — | £235 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay notice pay and awards £322.10; no separate legal basis is specified in the text. | Upheld | — | £322 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,991
- 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.