Case 1807253/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Kwesiga v Rujia Marketing Consultants Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1807253/2022
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Kwesiga
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for Rujia Marketing Consultants Limited from 21 July 2022 until she received a communication terminating her employment on 14 September 2022. Her last shift was on 5 September 2022. The tribunal heard sworn evidence from the claimant, noted that the respondent had not presented a response and did not attend, and found there was enough information on the file to give judgment.
The tribunal found that payment for the claimant's last shift should have been made, at the latest, in the payroll run on 10 October 2022, and that wages remained unpaid on that date despite the claimant contacting the employer in different ways. It also took into account that between 10 September and 12 October 2022 the claimant was misled by reassurances that payment would be made.
The tribunal concluded that the unlawful deduction from wages complaint was presented in time and succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £805.90 for unpaid wages declared to HMRC in a pay slip but not in fact paid to her.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; the respondent had not presented a response. The tribunal found the complaint was presented within the relevant time limit. | Upheld | — | £806 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £806
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.