Case 1600888/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Paraman v Blackwood Finance Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600888/2019
- Decision date
- 26 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Paraman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent presented a response saying the claim was not contested. Employment Judge Harfield therefore determined the matter under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on the material before the tribunal, and upheld the claims without a contested hearing.
The judgment records an award for arrears of pay, listed as £842.00 gross and £1,142.00 gross, together with notice pay of £3,162.36 gross and a statutory redundancy payment of £7,115.31. The total monetary award shown by the judgment is the sum of those figures.
The judgment also states that the claimant is responsible for tax due on the arrears of pay and notice pay. No further findings or legal reasoning are set out beyond the Rule 21 default judgment basis.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment lists arrears of pay as £842.00 gross and £1,142.00 gross; the remedy amount here combines those two figures because the judgment does not separate them into different legal claims. | Upheld | — | £1,984 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as notice pay. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for tax on the notice pay. | Upheld | — | £3,162 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment upheld under the default judgment. | Upheld | — | £7,115 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,262
- 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.