Case 3300385/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N ward v Project4 Global Events Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300385/2021
- Decision date
- 20 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto determined the case under rule 21 after the time limit for a response expired on 16 February 2021 and no ET3 had been presented. The respondent had stated that no part of the claim was contested. On the available material, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages, had failed to pay holiday pay, and that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £9,161.32 net in respect of the claimant's claims for redundancy payment, holiday pay and notice pay. It also listed the case for a 2-hour remedy hearing, to be held by CVP, to determine whether a further £937.49 should be paid in respect of holiday pay, with written evidence and documents to be exchanged by 17 June 2021.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages, but it does not give a separate calculation for this head. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that holiday pay had not been paid. The judgment also listed a further £937.49 to be considered at a later remedy hearing in respect of holiday pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay formed part of the net sum ordered, but the short rule 21 reasons do not separately explain the contractual basis or split out a standalone figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,161
- 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.