Case 2202607/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Warren and Landmark Clinic Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202607/2019
- Decision date
- 17 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Joffe JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not file ET3 grounds of resistance. The tribunal therefore determined the claims on the papers under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and vacated the hearing listed for 18 December 2019.
The tribunal held that the second respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant. It ordered the second respondent to pay £1,454 net unpaid salary for March 2019 and to account to HMRC for any tax due on that sum.
The tribunal recorded that the first respondent appeared to be the claimant's manager and not her employer, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear an unlawful deductions claim against the first respondent. It also said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim for interest or indemnity, and that the claimant had not given details of any consequential loss said to arise from the deduction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal held that the second respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages. It found the first respondent appeared to be the claimant's manager and not her employer, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the unlawful deductions claim against the first respondent. | Upheld | — | £1,454 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,454
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,454
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.