Case 3313330/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Neets Plug Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3313330/2019
- Decision date
- 26 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lang Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants did not attend the hearing, but both made written representations. The respondent did not present a response and did not attend. The tribunal recorded that the claimants had been dismissed on 6 December 2018 and had later provided details of their complaints in response to the tribunal's letter dated 9 December 2019.
For Ms R Tate, the tribunal accepted that she was owed unpaid wages of £1,194 gross, holiday pay for 7.5 days at £913 gross, and one week's notice pay of £550 net. It found those complaints well founded and entered judgment for £2,657.
For Mr M Beia, the tribunal accepted that he was owed wages of £557.69 gross, holiday pay of £479.62 gross based on 5 days outstanding holiday, and notice pay of £557.69 net. It found those complaints well founded and entered judgment for £1,595. The total awarded across both claims was £4,252.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant, Ms R Tate; unpaid wages found well founded. | Upheld | — | £1,194 |
| Holiday pay | First claimant, Ms R Tate; holiday pay for 7.5 days found well founded. | Upheld | — | £913 |
| Breach of contract | First claimant, Ms R Tate; one week's notice pay found well founded. | Upheld | — | £550 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant, Mr M Beia; wages found well founded. | Upheld | — | £558 |
| Holiday pay | Second claimant, Mr M Beia; holiday pay for 5 days found well founded. | Upheld | — | £480 |
| Breach of contract | Second claimant, Mr M Beia; notice pay found well founded. | Upheld | — | £558 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,252
- 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.