Case 6011749/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Elliott v The Launceston Timber Co Limited DEFAULT — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011749/2024
- Decision date
- 4 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Elliott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a default judgment issued under rule 21 because the Respondent, The Launceston Timber Co Limited, failed to respond to the Claim. Employment Judge Self determined the matter on the papers without a hearing and approved the judgment on 14 May 2025; it was sent to the parties on 4 June 2025.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant three sums: £490.45 in respect of unpaid notice pay, £1,471.35 in respect of unpaid wages, and £537.40 in respect of unpaid accrued holiday pay. The total payable to the Claimant is £2,499.20.
The judgment does not set out any reasoning, legal tests, or findings of fact beyond the amounts ordered, as is typical for a default judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Default judgment: £490.45 awarded in respect of unpaid notice pay. | Upheld | — | £490 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment: £1,471.35 awarded in respect of unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £1,471 |
| Holiday pay | Default judgment: £537.40 awarded in respect of unpaid accrued holiday pay. Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations; classified here as holiday_pay per the judgment wording. | Upheld | — | £537 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,499
- 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.