Case 2207237/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Evans v Orsatech Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207237/2021
- Decision date
- 9 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, Regional Employment Judge Wade determined the claim on the papers without a hearing after considering the ET1. The tribunal recorded that it was able properly to make a determination in the respondent's absence.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages and holiday pay to Mr Evans. It ordered payment of unpaid wages of £1,596 gross and holiday pay of £712 gross. The judgment also included notice pay of £3,192 gross.
The total sum ordered was £5,500, with the respondent required to account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due on that amount. The judgment does not set out any separate findings on liability beyond the non-payment findings, and it records no hearing evidence or further reasoning because the case was decided under rule 21.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages and orders unpaid wages of £1,596 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,596 |
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment orders notice pay of £3,192 gross. The text does not separately label this head of claim, so it is classified here as breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £3,192 |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay holiday pay and orders holiday pay of £712 gross. | Upheld | — | £712 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,500
- 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.