Case 2203520/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. T. Thompson-Ellis v Pong London Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203520/2021
- Decision date
- 4 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. T. Thompson-Ellis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The tribunal therefore determined the claim without a hearing under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules, on the basis of the ET1 and the documents before it.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages owed to the claimant. It ordered Pong London Limited to pay Ms. T. Thompson-Ellis £3,716.69 and to account to HMRC for the tax and national insurance due on that sum.
The award was made up of unpaid wages for September 2020 (£180), November 2020 (£72), January 2021 (£160.74), February 2021 (£289.34), March 2021 (£18.63), and June to October 2021 (£651.30, £673.01, £673.01, £651.30 and £347.36). The tribunal also amended the claim to include the sums sought after the application was lodged in May 2021, namely the June to October 2021 amounts.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined on the papers under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to file an ET3. The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages owed and ordered payment of £3,716.69, with the claim amended to include sums sought since lodging the application in May 2021. | Upheld | — | £3,717 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,717
- 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.