Case 2202599/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v P S S Singh Sagoo T/a Marylebone Locksmith and Secure Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2202599/2022
- Decision date
- 12 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Joffe JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not file ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Joffe considered the ET1 and decided that the claims could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, so the listed hearing on 14 July 2022 was vacated.
The tribunal’s substantive finding was that the respondents unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant. The judgment does not set out separate reasoning on any other claim label, but the case listing records breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages.
The tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the claimant £11,209 net and directed them to account to HMRC for any tax due on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The gov.uk listing for the case includes breach of contract. The short rule 21 judgment itself states only that the respondents unlawfully failed to pay wages and does not separately analyse the breach-of-contract label. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment expressly says the respondents unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant and orders payment of £11,209 net. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,209
- 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.