Case 3303780/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303780/2019
- Decision date
- 29 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file a response and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he had worked as a Warehouse Operative and had not been paid for 15 days in September 2018, 7 days in October 2018, and a notice period.
The claimant's written terms provided for annual salary of £12,000 gross, equating to £8.33 net per hour, for six-hour working days Monday to Friday. His employment was terminated summarily on 12 October 2018, but the tribunal found that he had been promised payment up to 31 October 2018 and that the reason given for termination was a cutback in staff.
The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one week's notice under s.86(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded sums for September 2018, October salary, and one week's net pay, stating the total net award as £2,149.14.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded the September 2018 sum under s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 and/or breach of contract jurisdiction. | Upheld | — | £750 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal awarded sums in respect of the claimant's notice period, including £1,549.38 for October salary and £249.90 for one week's net pay. The stated component figures do not arithmetically match the stated total net award, so the claim-level amount is left null. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,149
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.86(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.