Case 2205069/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Pridegreen Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205069/2019
- Decision date
- 30 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Nicolle therefore determined the claim on the ET1 alone under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, without a hearing.
On that basis, the Tribunal found that the Respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to the Claimant. It ordered the Respondent to pay unpaid wages of £3,235.25 gross. The judgment records that this figure was calculated from the Claimant's assertion that his gross monthly earnings should have been £1,128 and that he worked for the Respondent between 20 August 2019 and 15 November 2019.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the Respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages and orders payment of unpaid wages of £3,235.25 gross. The figure is said to be based on the Claimant's assertion that his gross monthly earnings should have been £1,128 and that he worked between 20 August 2019 and 15 November 2019. | Upheld | — | £3,235 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,235
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.