Case 2205614/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Z Balint v Nova Marketing Systems Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2205614/2020
- Decision date
- 2 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Z Balint
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after both respondents failed to submit a response to the claim. The tribunal noted that the claimant had clearly set out in box 9.2 the sums she was claiming for unpaid wages, £2,250.00, and expenses, £67.00.
The judgment also records that a Companies House search showed both respondents were still active and that the registered office addresses matched those on the claim form. On that basis, judgment was entered for the claimant without a hearing on 11 February 2021, which was vacated.
The respondents were ordered to pay £2,250.00 for unpaid wages and £67.00 for expenses, and were held jointly and severally liable for those sums. No separate statutory or compensatory award, interest, or other remedy is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment. The judgment records the claimant's box 9.2 figure of £2,250.00 for unpaid wages and grants judgment for that sum. | Upheld | — | £2,250 |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 default judgment. The judgment records the claimant's box 9.2 figure of £67.00 for expenses and grants judgment for that sum. | Upheld | — | £67 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,317
- 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.