Case 3323077/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lombard v LMS Partners Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3323077/2021
- Decision date
- 26 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lombard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 10 November 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response, either on time or out of time, and Employment Judge Hyams stated that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent owed the claimant £2,833.33 gross by way of unpaid wages and £1,104.22 gross by way of unpaid accrued holiday pay. The judgment does not set out any further findings of fact or dispute analysis beyond those amounts.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £3,937.55 gross in total, subject to the deduction of income tax and national insurance contributions at source under regulation 37 or, as the case may be, 37A of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the respondent owed the claimant £2,833.33 gross by way of unpaid wages. The judgment was issued under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response. | Upheld | — | £2,833 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal recorded that the respondent owed the claimant £1,104.22 gross by way of unpaid accrued holiday pay. The judgment was issued under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response. | Upheld | — | £1,104 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,938
- 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.