Case 2201057/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v PCK Skin Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201057/2020
- Decision date
- 5 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Nicolle therefore determined the claim on the papers without a hearing under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant for a total of 13 days. It accepted the claimant's gross annual salary as £35,000 and used that figure to derive a daily rate of £134.62, resulting in unpaid wages of £1,750 gross.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,750 gross in unpaid wages. No other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent filed no ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The tribunal determined the matter without a hearing under Rule 21 and found that wages had been unlawfully unpaid for 13 days, calculated by reference to a gross annual salary of £35,000 and a daily rate of £134.62. | Upheld | — | £1,750 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,750
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.