Case 1803018/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Youel Mr L Lewis v Ms Lyndsey Marshall — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803018/2019
- Decision date
- 12 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Youel Mr L Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend and did not present a response. The tribunal found that good service had been effected at the respondent's last known address. It also relied on text messages produced by the claimants, including a message of 24 March 2019 in which the respondent said she would admit to the tribunal what was owed to them.
The tribunal found that neither claimant had been paid for the cleaning work they undertook for the respondent. It accepted that they worked as a team, each carrying out 55 hours of work at an expected rate of £9 per hour, producing an unpaid amount of £495 for each claimant. Permission was given to add Mr Leon Lewis as a second claimant because the pleadings and the messages showed that he had worked alongside Miss Youel and that the respondent's admission applied to him as well.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant Miss Youel. The tribunal found she had not been paid for the cleaning work she carried out for the respondent. | Upheld | — | £495 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant Mr Leon Lewis was added as a claimant with permission. The tribunal found the admission in the respondent's messages applied equally to him. | Upheld | — | £495 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £990
- 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.