Case 1800602/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Hazlewood v ProActiv Marketing Limited AT A HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 1800602/2021
- Decision date
- 7 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Hazlewood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent's name to ProActiv Marketing Ltd and noted that the respondent had failed to submit a Response in proper form. It proceeded on the claimant's unchallenged sworn evidence after concluding that any defence to the unauthorised deductions claim, based on an alleged contractual provision said to be relevant to payment due on 5 December 2020, had no reasonable prospect of success.
On that evidence, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages for the entirety of the payment due for 88.75 hours worked at £10.00 per hour. It declared that deduction unlawful and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £877.50 gross. The judgment also states that the tribunal had no jurisdiction under this claim to hear any complaint in respect of mental and emotional abuse or future loss of wages.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent failed to submit a Response in the proper form. The tribunal proceeded on the claimant's unchallenged sworn evidence and said that any defence based on an alleged contractual provision relevant to payment due on 5 December 2020 had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment also states that the tribunal had no jurisdiction under this claim to hear any complaint about mental and emotional abuse or future loss of wages. | Upheld | — | £878 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £878
- 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.