Case 2205743/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Colonnade (Operator) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205743/2019
- Decision date
- 9 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JL Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to file ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Having considered the ET1, Employment Judge Wade decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant for the period 8 August to 15 September 2019. It ordered that the respondent would pay the unlawfully deducted wages, but required the claimant to file a short statement setting out the gross unpaid wages figure before a remedy judgment would be sent.
The tribunal stated that it did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for distress and anxiety. The listed hearing on 10 March 2020 was vacated because judgment had been given.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment found wages unlawfully unpaid for 8 August to 15 September 2019. The amount was not determined in this judgment; claimant was ordered to file a short statement of the gross unpaid wages figure before a remedy judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal stated it did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for distress and anxiety. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.