Case 2201168/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Burnet v Think Education Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201168/2021
- Decision date
- 28 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Burnet
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The tribunal was satisfied that the respondent had been effectively served with the claim and with further correspondence giving an additional opportunity to respond. Under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, Regional Employment Judge Wade determined the remaining claims without a hearing on the basis of the ET1.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant did not have sufficient service to bring such a claim. No compensation was awarded for that claim. The tribunal then considered the remaining claim on the papers.
On the wages claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay salary of £3,835.88 to the claimant. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay that sum and to account to HMRC for any tax and National Insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have sufficient service to claim unfair dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay salary of £3,835.88. | Upheld | — | £3,836 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,836
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules 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.