Case 2204614/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Creative Production Service Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204614/2019
- Decision date
- 23 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Adkin JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Creative Production Service Ltd, did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Adkin therefore issued a rule 21 judgment in favour of Mr C Ward at the Central London Employment Tribunal.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also recorded that the claimant had suffered financial losses falling under section 24(2) ERA 1996.
Compensation was ordered in the sum of £2,597.50. The judgment does not provide a split between heads of loss beyond that total figure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The tribunal found an unlawful failure to pay wages under section 13 ERA 1996 and awarded compensation of £2,597.50, including financial losses under section 24(2) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,598 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,598
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.