Case 3306417/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Sol Attendance Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3306417/2020
- Decision date
- 7 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and her breach of contract complaint were well founded and successful. The respondent was ordered to pay £4,392 in total, comprising £2,808 for unpaid salary between 23 March 2020 and 27 May 2020 and £1,584 for accrued but untaken holiday entitlement.
The respondent did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal recorded that the administration had contacted and spoken to the respondent's representative on 6 April 2021 to ensure they were aware of the hearing, and the judge was satisfied that the respondent had been properly informed and reminded. The matter proceeded in the respondent's absence under Rule 47 and the overriding objective.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and awards £2,808 for unpaid salary between 23 March 2020 and 27 May 2020. | Upheld | — | £2,808 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract complaint was well founded and successful. The associated sum appears to be £1,584 for accrued but un-taken holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,584 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,392
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal rules
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.