Case 3200522/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Meuser v G&T Nutrition Limited DEFAULT — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200522/2020
- Decision date
- 7 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Meuser
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to enter a response, and the tribunal issued a rule 21 default judgment in the claimant's favour. The judgment records that the claim was upheld in respect of unpaid wages, unpaid notice pay, and failure to provide a statement of written particulars.
The tribunal found that Miss L Meuser worked an average of 24 hours per week for the respondent from 28 October 2019 to 29 November 2019 and was paid £7.70 per hour. The monetary award was then set out in three items: £5.78 for unpaid wages, £86.20 for unpaid holiday pay, and £369.60 under section 38 for the written particulars failure.
The total award was £461.58. The judgment does not set out a separate quantified figure for the unpaid notice pay mentioned in the default judgment paragraph, so that head is not separately itemised in the award section.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages | Upheld | — | £6 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday pay | Upheld | — | £86 |
| Breach of contract | The rule 21 judgment refers to unpaid notice pay, but no separate monetary figure is set out in the award | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Section 38 award for failure to provide a statement of written particulars, recorded in the judgment as two weeks' pay | Upheld | — | £370 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £462
- 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.