Case 3322539/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Playfair v Mediamends Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3322539/2021
- Decision date
- 19 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Playfair
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response in time, so the tribunal proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal found that Mediamends Limited had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £4,068.22.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's remaining claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, failure to provide itemised pay statements, failure to provide a statement of employment particulars, and breach of contract succeeded. Remedy for those remaining claims was not determined in this judgment and was to be dealt with at a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £4,068 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim succeeded; remedy was left to a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim succeeded; remedy was left to a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide itemised pay statements; claim succeeded and remedy was left to a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a statement of employment particulars; claim succeeded and remedy was left to a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim succeeded; remedy was left to a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,068
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.