Case 2301337/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Simoes v C. Palace Living Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301337/2020
- Decision date
- 24 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Simoes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment. The respondent failed to present a response, did not attend, and did not submit an ET3. Employment Judge R F Powell sat alone at London South by CVP on 11 February 2021. The claimant also did not attend and was not represented.
The only claim determined in the judgment was a breach of contract claim arising from the respondent's failure to pay one month's salary. The claimant's ET1 said he was owed £2,083.28 net for the month worked before termination of his employment. The tribunal found that claim well founded and ordered the respondent to pay damages in that net sum.
The reasons record that the ET1 was sent to the respondent's registered address on 24 June 2020 and no ET3 was submitted. The tribunal said that, in the circumstances, it was proportionate and in accordance with the overriding objective to enter judgment under Rule 21.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Default judgment under Rule 21; the tribunal found the breach of contract claim for non-payment of one month's salary to be well founded and awarded net damages of £2,083.28. | Upheld | — | £2,083 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,083
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.