Case 3213417/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Marshall-Purves v Contour Landscapes Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3213417/2020
- Decision date
- 24 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Marshall-Purves
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 within the time limit, so the matter was determined under Rule 21 on the material in the ET1 and the claimant's further letter dated 3 March 2021. On that basis, the tribunal found the claimant's claim for arrears of pay to be well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £494.87, calculated as 41 hours at £12.07 per hour.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for payment in lieu of annual leave under Regulations 14 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It found that the claimant was entitled to £1,050.09 for 87 hours of holiday accrued but untaken at £12.07 per hour. The tribunal recorded a total sum due of £1,544.96, gross of tax and national insurance, and stated that the respondent must satisfy the order by payment less any deductions required by law. It also stated that it had no jurisdiction to make any award for mental anguish.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said the claim for arrears of pay, brought under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or alternatively under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, was well founded. | Upheld | — | £495 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal said the claim for payment in lieu of annual leave under Regulations 14 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded, and that 87 hours of holiday had accrued but been untaken. | Upheld | — | £1,050 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,545
- 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.