Case 1806698/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806698/2019
- Decision date
- 13 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge REPRESENTATION
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not attend the hearing and had not filed a notice of appearance. The Tribunal was satisfied that the respondents would not be materially prejudiced, and converted the preliminary hearing into a final hearing to determine the claimant's claims.
The Tribunal found that the first respondent, Dooman May Ltd, made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the first respondent to pay the claimant £396.45, described as the gross sum due to her, by 16 March 2020.
The Tribunal held that the complaint was properly brought against the first respondent as the claimant's employer. The complaints against the second, third and fourth respondents were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found that the first respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages. The complaints against the second, third and fourth respondents were dismissed because the complaint was properly brought against the first respondent as the claimant's employer. | Upheld | — | £396 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £396
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.