Case 3304116/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Goodenough v Envirotec Integrated Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3304116/2020
- Decision date
- 2 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Goodenough
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response to the claim, and judgment was entered for the claimant under Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment records that the claimant was owed holiday pay and awards £1,212.74 in compensation, which the respondent was ordered to pay.
The tribunal also recorded that the respondent failed to give the claimant an itemised pay statement containing particulars of salary on 7 March 2020. No separate monetary sum is stated in the judgment for that finding. The judgment is signed by Employment Judge Vowles and dated 27 August 2020, with the decision sent to the parties on 2 October 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal entered judgment for the claimant under Rule 21 and awarded £1,212.74 for unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,213 |
| Other | The judgment records a failure to give the claimant an itemised pay statement containing particulars of salary on 7 March 2020, but no separate monetary award is stated for this finding. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,213
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,213
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.