Case 2302161/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bradley Smith v Enabledware Limited RECORD OF A FINAL HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302161/2024
- Decision date
- 9 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Bradley Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response within 28 days, by 29 March 2024, so the response was out of time. On that basis the tribunal did not allow the respondent to participate in the hearing, and the respondent's application to postpone the hearing was dismissed.
The claimant's claims for unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract were found well founded. They related to non-payment of one month's wages for the period 1 January 2024 to 31 January 2024.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £2,333.33 gross. The judgment does not allocate that figure separately between the two successful claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim succeeded in relation to non-payment of one month's wages for the period 1 January 2024 to 31 January 2024. The judgment does not split the award between this claim and the parallel breach of contract claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim succeeded in relation to non-payment of one month's wages for the period 1 January 2024 to 31 January 2024. The judgment does not split the award between this claim and the parallel unlawful deduction of wages claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,333
- 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.