Case 2206658/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A. Paul v Gone for a Burton Ltd (formerly ABC Pub Co Ltd) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206658/2021
- Decision date
- 4 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A. Paul
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Under Rule 21, Regional Employment Judge Wade determined the claim without a hearing and found that Mr A. Paul had been unfairly dismissed and that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay notice pay, holiday pay in lieu, and outstanding wages. The listed hearing for 12 to 13 May 2022 was vacated.
The annexed schedule of loss recorded gross annual basic pay of £27,869.01, gross weekly pay of £535.85, net weekly pay of £429.46, an 8-week notice period, 7 years' continuous service, and a termination date of 7 July 2021. It also recorded no unemployment benefits and no mitigation income. The schedule quantified notice pay at £3,435.68, holiday pay at £2,894.09, and unpaid wages for the furlough period at £15,003.80.
The schedule also set out a basic award of £4,018.87 and a compensatory award of £10,016.87 after a 25% uplift for the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the Acas code. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £35,369.31 in total and to account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due on that amount.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment: the tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed after the respondent failed to file an ET3. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent unlawfully failed to pay notice pay and outstanding wages. The judgment did not separately apportion the monetary award between those heads. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Holiday pay in lieu was included in the tribunal's order and schedule of loss; the judgment did not separately quantify this head from the rest of the award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £35,369
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,019
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £10,017
- 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.