Case 1600556/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Wise v Bassic Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600556/2019
- Decision date
- 30 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Wise
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Wise was employed by Bassic Limited as a booking agent from 18 May 2017 to 28 February 2019. He resigned because he said he could not make ends meet on the wages paid. His basic salary was found to be £7,050 a year for a 35 hour week, equating to £600 per calendar month, and he had repeatedly asked for an increase in salary during his employment.
Towards the end of the employment Mr Wise consulted Acas and took independent advice, after which he raised the issue with the Respondent on the basis that he had been paid less than the National Minimum Wage. The Respondent then reviewed the position and agreed to pay arrears representing the difference between the National Minimum Wage and his salary from 2017 until the end of February 2019.
The Tribunal relied on Mr Wise's evidence and the Respondent's admissions, together with a spreadsheet and payslip seen by the Tribunal, which confirmed arrears of pay of £3,790.20 gross and £2,845.75 net, with a pay date of 1 April 2019. The Respondent did not attend the hearing and did not pay the arrears. On that basis, the Tribunal made the award for arrears of pay in the gross sum of £3,790.20.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded arrears of pay in the total sum of £3,790.20 gross, described as a net payment of £2,845.75. | Upheld | — | £3,790 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,790
- 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.