Case 2205841/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Saint Martin Holdings Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205841/2019
- Decision date
- 15 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Stout JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined under rule 21 because the respondent did not file an ET3 grounds of resistance. Employment Judge Stout considered the ET1 and decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing.
The tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages and holiday pay to the claimant. It ordered payment of a total of £31,656.92 net.
The award was made up of £28,500 net for wages, identified as five months' salary at £5,700 per month after tax and NI deductions, and £3,156.92 net for holiday pay. The holiday pay figure was calculated by reference to 12 days' holiday pay, based on a 30-day annual entitlement pro rata for six months' employment, less three days already taken.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages and awarded £28,500 net, described as five months' salary at £5,700 per month after tax and NI deductions. | Upheld | — | £28,500 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay holiday pay and awarded £3,156.92 net, calculated by reference to 12 days' holiday pay after taking account of the pro rata entitlement and days already taken. | Upheld | — | £3,157 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,657
- 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.