Mr P Galazka v Carl Entwistle trading as the King William Pub — 2024

The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal noted that the response was submitted about four months late and that there had been no application for an extension of time under Rule 20(1). The respondent attended the hearing, but no extension application was made, so the tribunal proceeded to determine the claim and hear representations only on remedy.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that Carl Entwistle, trading as the King William Pub, was the employer. Although the claimant referred to documents suggesting a different company might have been involved, he gave sworn evidence that that company was not named in his contract and had not been identified to him as his employer during employment. The late response also did not suggest that any other company was the correct employer.

On the wage claim, the tribunal found a well-founded complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of wages not paid while the claimant worked his notice period. It found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction by failing to pay wages on 30 June 2023 and ordered payment of £1,384.80 gross, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance.

On the holiday pay claim, the tribunal found a well-founded complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages for holiday accrued as claimed but untaken when employment ended. It ordered payment of £577, again with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance. A separate notice recorded that statutory interest would apply under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the award remained unpaid after the relevant decision day, but no interest amount was calculated in the judgment itself.