Case 1402358/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Independently CIC — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402358/2021
- Decision date
- 19 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Y. Kim brought a claim against Independently CIC, heard by video on 29 April 2022 before Employment Judge Smail. The Respondent did not appear. The tribunal found that the Claimant contracted as a worker in relation to the Respondent. It also found that she had actually worked 53.5 hours and was entitled to be paid for those hours at the minimum wage rate of £8.91 per hour.
The tribunal found that the Respondent was not obliged to pay the Claimant for hours she did not work. It recorded that, by electronic communication dated 3 May 2021, the Respondent had acknowledged that it had to pay the Claimant for work she had done, but that payment had not been made. On that basis, the tribunal held that the Respondent had unreasonably resisted that part of the claim.
The tribunal ordered payment within 14 days of unpaid wages of £476.69 and preparation time of £410.00, making a total award of £876.69. The judgment was sent to the parties on 19 May 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the Claimant was a worker and that the Respondent had to pay for 53.5 hours actually worked at the minimum wage rate of £8.91 per hour. The award also included £410 for 10 hours of preparation time because the Respondent unreasonably resisted payment after acknowledging on 3 May 2021 that it had to pay for the work done. | Upheld | — | £477 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £877
- 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.