Case 2207121/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Herbst v Orsatech Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207121/2021
- Decision date
- 13 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Herbst
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to file an ET3 grounds of resistance. Regional Employment Judge Wade determined the case on the papers under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, without a hearing.
On the claim itself, the tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant notice pay, holiday pay and wages. It also held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
The respondent was ordered to pay £6,249.99 in notice pay, £1,749.72 in holiday pay and £2,500 in wages, making a total award of £10,499.71. The judgment also directed that HMRC be accounted to for any tax and National Insurance due on the sum.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay notice pay and wages. The ordered sums for these heads were £6,249.99 in notice pay and £2,500 in wages. | Upheld | — | £8,750 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered payment of £1,749.72 in holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,750 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,500
- across all upheld claims
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.