Case 2206535/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Lanistar Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206535/2021
- Decision date
- 13 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge E Burns issued a Rule 21 judgment on 13 December 2021 after the respondent failed to file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The judge determined the claim on the papers without a hearing, and the listed hearing for 15 December 2021 did not take place.
The tribunal found that Lanistar Limited had unlawfully failed to pay Andrew Farman wages for the six-month period from 1 March to 31 August 2021, notice pay for two months, and holiday pay for 17 days. It ordered payment of £40,998 for six months' pay, £13,666 for two months' notice pay, and £5,361.53 for holiday pay, making a total gross award of £60,025.53 subject to deductions for any tax and national insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay wages for the six-month period from 1 March to 31 August 2021 and ordered six months' pay at £6,833 per month. | Upheld | — | £40,998 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay for two months was awarded as gross damages, calculated at £6,833 per month. | Upheld | — | £13,666 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay for 17 days was awarded; the judgment says this equated to 3.4 weeks' holiday. | Upheld | — | £5,362 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £60,026
- 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.