Case 1302648/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Chim v Metaverse Recruitment Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1302648/2022
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hussain Representation
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Chim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend the hearing and had given no notice or explanation. The tribunal waited until after 14:15 before proceeding and then heard the case in the respondent's absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The claimant's application to extend time for presenting the complaint under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was granted. The tribunal recorded that it had jurisdiction, subject to section 111 ERA 1996, to hear the unlawful deduction from wages claim.
On the merits, the tribunal found the claim well founded because the respondent had made unlawful deductions by failing to pay the claimant her full salary from 15 November 2021 to 26 November 2021. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £455.50 net by 23 December 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal granted the claimant's application to extend time under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found the unlawful deduction from wages claim well founded. It held the respondent had failed to pay the claimant her full salary from 15 November 2021 to 26 November 2021. | Upheld | — | £456 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £456
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 47, Schedule 1 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.