Case 1400324/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Marimbe v Shire Oak Energy Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400324/2023
- Decision date
- 7 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Marimbe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Rayner Date issued a Rule 21 judgment under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after recording that the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the tribunal determined the claim on the papers.
The tribunal found that Mrs M Marimbe had suffered an unlawful deduction from pay because wages were not paid for six months, from 1 June 2022 to 31 December 2022. It recorded an award of £6,746.34 gross for the unpaid wages.
The tribunal also found that she had been wrongfully dismissed and was entitled to notice pay. It ordered payment of 4 weeks, described as 1 month, of notice pay in the sum of £3,503.57 net.
All other claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from pay for unpaid wages over the period 1 June 2022 to 31 December 2022; it ordered £6,746.34 gross. | Upheld | — | £6,746 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant had been wrongfully dismissed and was entitled to notice pay; it ordered 4 weeks' notice pay of £3,503.57 net. | Upheld | — | £3,504 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,250
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.