Case 3318746/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Matthew Barlow v Gareth Eynon — 2020
- Case reference
- 3318746/2019
- Decision date
- 6 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Matthew Barlow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which no response had been presented by the respondent after the response deadline expired on 12 August 2019. Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto recorded that, having heard from the claimant at a telephone preliminary hearing, the tribunal was satisfied that the claim had been presented within the relevant time limit.
On the material available, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,948.85 gross in respect of that claim. The judgment also records that if the respondent pays the tax and national insurance due to HMRC, payment of the net amount will meet the judgment debt.
The tribunal further found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave. It ordered payment of £2,020 for that failure. No separate award structure beyond those two sums is set out in the judgment, and the total of the orders is £3,968.85.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £1,948.85 gross. The judgment states that if the respondent pays any tax and national insurance due to HMRC, payment of the net amount will satisfy the judgment debt. | Upheld | — | £1,949 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave and ordered payment of £2,020. | Upheld | — | £2,020 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,969
- 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.