Case 3200618/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Baker v KA Limited DEFAULT — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200618/2020
- Decision date
- 20 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Baker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to enter a response, so the tribunal issued default judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment states that it was entered in the claimant's favour in respect of his unpaid wages claims and unpaid notice.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £520 for 8 days' unpaid salary in January 2020. The order does not break out any separate amount for notice pay, and the bottom-line sum recorded in the judgment is £520.
The holiday pay claim was not quantified. The claimant had been directed to provide details of the amount claimed by 3 April 2020, but no details were provided. The tribunal said it did not have sufficient particulars to assess the holiday pay claim, and the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 20 July 2020 to explain the basis of the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment was entered under Rule 21 in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid notice. The order quantifies £520 for 8 days' unpaid salary in January 2020 and does not separate any notice element. | Upheld | — | £520 |
| Holiday pay | The claimant was required to provide details of the amount claimed by 3 April 2020, but no details were provided. The tribunal said there were insufficient particulars to assess the holiday pay claim, and the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 20 July 2020. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £520
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.