Case 6006987/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Aaron James v Intesa Communications Ltd At: Central London Employment Tribunal — 2024
- Case reference
- 6006987/2024
- Decision date
- 29 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Aaron James
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Intesa Communications Ltd, failed to file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge E Burns determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 that the claim could properly be decided without a hearing on the basis of the ET1.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant statutory sick pay of £467 and holiday pay of £484.20 gross. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £951.20 in total, and to account to HMRC for any tax and National Insurance due on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent unlawfully failed to pay statutory sick pay of £467. Judgment issued under Rule 21 following the respondent's failure to file an ET3. | Upheld | — | £467 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal awarded £484.20 gross in holiday pay. Judgment issued under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £484 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £951
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.