Case 3200695/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Martin v Elysium Group — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200695/2020
- Decision date
- 20 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote remedy hearing before Employment Judge Jones. The judgment records that EJ Lewis had already found on 20 May 2020 that Mr J Martin's unlawful deduction of wages claim succeeded, and that the present hearing was to determine remedy. The respondent did not file a response or counterclaim, and the tribunal described the matter as undefended.
The respondent confirmed that Mr Martin had not been paid for seven shifts worked in December. The tribunal accepted the claimant's salary as £20,000 per annum and calculated the unpaid wages by dividing that figure by 260 working days, giving a daily rate of £76.92, and multiplying by 7 shifts. That produced a remedy figure of £538.46.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mr Martin £538.46 immediately as wages owed in respect of the claim. The judgment does not record any separate award for interest or any other component of compensation.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | EJ Lewis had already found on 20 May 2020 that the claimant's unlawful deduction of wages claim succeeded. This remedy judgment, heard remotely on 20 July 2020, fixed the amount owed after the respondent confirmed the claimant had not been paid for 7 December shifts. | Upheld | — | £538 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £538
- 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.