Case 3327641/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Commissioner for HM Revenue and Customs — 2021
- Case reference
- 3327641/2019
- Decision date
- 29 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a costs application, not a determination of the underlying National Minimum Wage dispute. The appeal had concerned two Notices of Underpayment served on 2 October 2019, with arrears of pay of £7,501.96 and a financial penalty of £10,113.59. The issue in the underlying dispute was whether accommodation provided by the appellant counted as "living accommodation" for the purposes of the accommodation offset under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application by JD Wetherspoon plc for costs under rules 76 and 78 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, arising from its appeal against Notices of Underpayment issued under s.19 NMWA 1998, was dismissed. The tribunal held that the threshold for costs was met after the respondent filed its response on 14 January 2020, but it declined to exercise its discretion to make a costs order. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 76(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- rule 76(1)(b) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- rule 78 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.