Case 3318742/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v White Label Logistics Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3318742/2019
- Decision date
- 6 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Norwich on 23 October 2019 before Employment Judge Postle under Rule 21, with neither party attending and no response entered by the respondent. The tribunal therefore determined the claim on the papers and gave judgment on 6 November 2019.
The tribunal made a declaration that the claimant had suffered unlawful deduction of wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £2,867. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages equivalent to 1 week, assessed at £700.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,300. The judgment records no separate award breakdown beyond those figures, and the total of the sums ordered is £4,867.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal declared that the claimant suffered unlawful deduction of wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,867. | Upheld | — | £2,867 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages equal to 1 week, namely £700. | Upheld | — | £700 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,300. | Upheld | — | £1,300 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,867
- 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.