Case 3328235/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Linnett Mr R Underwood v Buddies New York Café Limited (in voluntary liquidation) Heard by: CVP link — 2021
- Case reference
- 3328235/2019
- Decision date
- 17 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Frazer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Linnett Mr R Underwood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not appear, and Employment Judge A Frazer entered judgment for the claimants under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. At the remedy stage, the tribunal heard from Mr Linnett, Mr Underwood and the insolvency practitioner for PCB, and recorded that the claimants' termination-related claims had already been paid by the Redundancy Payments Office.
For Mr Underwood, the tribunal noted that he had not brought a claim for unpaid wages and was only entitled to the redundancy payment that had already been paid by the RPO. It therefore made no further order for remedy in his claim.
For Mr Linnett, after hearing his evidence under oath, the tribunal accepted his claim for unpaid wages and solicitors' costs arising out of breach of contract. It awarded £534 for arrears of wages for 21 to 30 October 2019 and £470 for solicitors' costs, producing a total award of £1,004.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal recorded that the claimant's termination-related entitlement had already been paid by the Redundancy Payments Office, so it made no order for remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal awarded £534 arrears of wages for 21 to 30 October 2019 and £470 solicitors' costs, described as arising out of breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £1,004 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,004
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal 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.