Case 2202659/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Fintricity Solutions Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202659/2019
- Decision date
- 22 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O Segal QC
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who had worked for the respondent since August 2018, satisfied the tribunal that he had worked unpaid between March and May 2019 inclusive. That finding was consistent with the respondent's ET3, which accepted that it had not had the money to pay its employees. The tribunal therefore awarded £8,495.52 for unpaid wages.
The tribunal also accepted that the claimant's contract provided for a four-week notice period once the initial six-month probation period had expired, which it had. It calculated the notice pay due by multiplying the net monthly salary by 12 and dividing by 13, and awarded £2,614. The tribunal noted that the respondent appeared to be insolvent and that the claimant would likely need to apply to the Secretary of State under s.182 Employment Rights Act 1996 for partial compensation for the unpaid sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted unpaid work between March and May 2019 and awarded £8,495.52 for unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £8,496 |
| Other | The tribunal awarded £2,614 for 4 weeks' contractual notice pay; the judgment does not label a separate legal cause of action. | Upheld | — | £2,614 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,110
- across all upheld claims
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.