Case 2501776/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Baty v THG North East Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501776/2020
- Decision date
- 14 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Baty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Baty was employed by THG North East Ltd from 6 August 2020 to 24 August 2020. He presented his claim on 22 September 2020 alleging unlawful deduction of wages under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and a claim under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for unpaid accrued leave. The Respondent did not return a response by the response date of 28 October 2020, so the Tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 on the material available.
The Tribunal accepted the Claimant's evidence and found that he had worked for 2.4 weeks without any payment of wages. It also found that he had accrued 1 day's statutory annual leave, which had not been paid when his employment ended. On that basis, the Tribunal held that both complaints were well founded and succeeded.
The judgment ordered the Respondent to pay the gross sum of £768.96 in respect of unpaid wages and £64.08 in respect of accrued but untaken holiday pay. No other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim brought under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 for unpaid wages. No response was returned by the Respondent, and the Tribunal issued judgment under Rule 21 on the material available. | Upheld | — | £769 |
| Holiday pay | Claim under regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998 for accrued but untaken holiday pay. The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had accrued 1 day of statutory annual leave and had not been paid on termination. | Upheld | — | £64 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £833
- 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.