Case 2202426/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Fisher v Rose Arts and Media Limited At: London Central — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202426/2019
- Decision date
- 7 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Fisher
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningUpon the claimant's application by letter dated 24 November 2019, the tribunal reconsidered the default judgment dated 19 November 2019 under rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and varied it. The variation concerned the sums payable to Ms L Fisher and stated that the payments were gross.
The tribunal ordered the respondent, Rose Arts and Media Limited, to pay £1,833 for wages for April 2019, £1,438.20 for wages up to 23 May 2019, and £1,640 for commission. The varied total was £4,911.20 gross.
The tribunal noted that the original judgment had used 23 working days for the period from 1 to 23 May 2019, but the correct figure was 17 working days, giving £1,438.20 at £84.60 per day. No other substantive findings or separate remedy components were recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not separately allocate the varied gross award between this head and the other listed payment claim; it only varies the default judgment to specify the sums due. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not separately allocate the varied gross award between this head and the other listed payment claim; it only varies the default judgment to specify the sums due. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,911
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 71 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.