Case 1404051/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person, assisted by her husband For the v Mr S Brookes of the Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404051/2023
- Decision date
- 16 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person, assisted by her husband For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs Victoria Forrester, worked for Blind Pig Group Limited as a Creative Lead from 5 December 2022 until 24 January 2023, initially as an employee and subsequently as a worker. She had earned £6,000 in wages which the respondent failed to pay, and brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant had previously issued proceedings against Blind Pig Media Limited, which she understood to be her employer's name, and the parties had entered into an ACAS COT3 conciliation settlement agreement on 19 May 2023 under which the respondent agreed to pay £6,000 in two weekly instalments of £3,000. The respondent defaulted on that agreement on the basis that it was expressed to be with the wrong respondent, and Blind Pig Media Limited subsequently entered Creditors' Voluntary Liquidation on 7 June 2023. The claimant then reissued proceedings naming Blind Pig Group Limited as the respondent.
Mr Brookes, appearing for the respondent, confirmed that the respondent accepted the sum was due and owing but explained that it needed time to pay. The tribunal found the claimant succeeded in her claim and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £6,000.00.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim brought under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996. Respondent did not dispute the claim and accepted the sum was due and owing. | Upheld | — | £6,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.