Case 2204801/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Alan Stott v BX Op Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204801/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alan Stott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under rule 21 after the respondent failed to file an ET3. Employment Judge Glennie considered the ET1 and the documents supplied by the claimant and decided the claim could properly be determined without a hearing. The tribunal found that BX Op Services Limited had unlawfully failed to pay wages of £30,000, holiday pay of £1,707.70, and notice pay of £1,713.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,713. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £35,133.70 in total and to account to HMRC for any tax and NI due on that sum. The scheduled hearing on 11 September 2023 was vacated and the parties were directed not to attend.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £30,000 |
| Working time regulations | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,708 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,713 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,713 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £35,134
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.