Case 2203424/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v SDJ Marble Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203424/2019
- Decision date
- 21 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew James
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, SDJ Marble Limited, did not file ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Andrew James therefore determined the claims on the papers under rule 21, without a hearing. The judgment records that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the amounts claimed.
The tribunal ordered SDJ Marble Limited to pay £3,772.50 to Mr Pacheco, £3,000 to Mr Froes, and £4,479 to Mr Virhuez, with tax and National Insurance to be deducted as necessary. The written judgment contains no further findings, separate legal analysis, or additional remedy components.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Pacheco; the rule 21 judgment ordered payment of £3,772.50, less tax and NI as necessary. | Upheld | — | £3,773 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Froes; the rule 21 judgment ordered payment of £3,000, less tax and NI as necessary. | Upheld | — | £3,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Virhuez; the rule 21 judgment ordered payment of £4,479, less tax and NI as necessary. | Upheld | — | £4,479 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,252
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.