Case 1600900/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Tan v Blackwood Business Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600900/2019
- Decision date
- 26 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Tan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Harfield gave judgment on 12 September 2019 under Rule 21 after the respondent presented a response stating that the claim was not contested, and the judge said there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination on the papers.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's arrears of pay, notice pay and statutory redundancy payment claims. The judgment records arrears of pay as £926.85 and £1,226.85 gross in the extracted text, notice pay as £3,397.20 gross, and statutory redundancy payment as £8,493.30. It also states that the claimant is responsible for tax due on the arrears of pay and notice pay, and the stated figures total £14,044.20 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment records 'Arrears of Pay' as £926.85 (gross) and £1,226.85 (gross); the extracted text does not make clear whether these are separate sub-sums or a formatting/OCR issue. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded at £3,397.20 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,397 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded at £8,493.30. | Upheld | — | £8,493 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,044
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal's 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.