Case 3322588/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Seabright v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3322588/2019
- Decision date
- 11 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr C Seabright
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Procan Bioscience Limited, did not present a response to the claim. Under Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, judgment was therefore entered in favour of the claimant, Mr C Seabright.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant’s wages, breached his contract of employment, and failed to pay all holiday pay due. The judgment does not give a separate breakdown of the amount attributable to each head of claim.
The respondent was ordered to pay Mr Seabright £2,521.97. No additional remedy components, such as interest or a split award by claim, are recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered under Rule 21 after no response was presented. The award was not apportioned between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Judgment entered under Rule 21 after no response was presented. The award was not apportioned between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that all holiday pay due had not been paid. The award was not apportioned between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,522
- 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.