Case 6006760/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Nicholas Battersby v E2 Cornershop Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006760/2024
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nicholas Battersby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the respondent did not file an ET3 within the deadline and did not request an extension of time. Employment Judge Brown said that, having considered the ET1 and the claimant's documents, the claim could properly be determined without a hearing.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's full wages for the final week in May/June 2024, leaving a shortfall of £60.00. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay 1 week's notice pay in the sum of £130.00.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £190.00 in total and to account to HMRC for any tax and National Insurance due on that sum. No separate remedy breakdown beyond those two amounts was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found a shortfall of £60.00 in the claimant's full wages for the final week in May/June 2024. | Upheld | — | £60 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay 1 week's notice pay in the sum of £130.00. | Upheld | — | £130 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £190
- 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.