Case 2205826/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Webster Machinery Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2205826/2018
- Decision date
- 27 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JL Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not file ET3 grounds of resistance. The tribunal therefore determined the claims on the papers under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, having considered the ET1 and deciding that a hearing was not required.
Employment Judge Wade found that the respondent had wrongfully dismissed the claimant and had unlawfully failed to pay wages and holiday pay. The judgment does not set out a contested factual narrative or any additional reasoning beyond the rule 21 determination and the outcome on liability.
The monetary award was £18,529 gross, made up of £1,500 for notice pay, £14,200 for unpaid wages, and £2,829 for holiday pay. The judgment does not record any separate award for interest, injury to feelings, or other ancillary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent had wrongfully dismissed the claimant. The award included notice pay of £1,500 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages. The award included unpaid wages of £14,200 gross. | Upheld | — | £14,200 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay holiday pay. The award included holiday pay of £2,829 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,829 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,529
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £18,529
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.