Case 2207268/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Inesta (Leicester) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207268/2020
- Decision date
- 26 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Adkin determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 without a hearing, and the listed hearing on 28 May 2021 did not take place.
The tribunal held that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant, including any holiday pay entitlement. That is the only substantive liability finding recorded in the judgment.
The judgment did not fix the amount due. Instead, it directed the claimant to provide further information by 16 June 2021, including the amount claimed, the basis of the calculation, and evidence of the agreed rate of pay or the terms of any oral agreement. A judge was then to review that material and decide whether a further hearing was needed or whether the matter could be decided on the papers.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; the tribunal found the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages, including any holiday pay entitlement. The judgment did not quantify the amount owed and directed the claimant to provide calculations and evidence of pay. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.