Case 2201119/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Blue Velvet Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201119/2020
- Decision date
- 16 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was Miss Vivienne Engels and the Respondent was Blue Velvet Limited, after the Tribunal exercised its discretion to substitute the correct legal title for the trading name Burger Lux used in the ET1. The Respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance, and Employment Judge Adkin determined that the claim could properly be decided without a hearing.
The Tribunal made a judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 that the Respondent had unlawfully deducted the Claimant's wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The order was for payment to the Claimant of £513.33 unpaid wages, net of tax and national insurance.
No separate apportionment of the award was recorded beyond the unpaid wages figure. The judgment contains no findings on discrimination, dismissal, or other claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The Tribunal determined the claim on the papers under rule 21 and substituted Blue Velvet Limited for the trading name Burger Lux. | Upheld | — | £513 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £513
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £513
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 34 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.