Case 2206363/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Adero Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206363/2021
- Decision date
- 24 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout RULE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 grounds of resistance. Employment Judge Stout therefore considered the ET1 and the further documents filed by Mr K Lee, including his contract of employment, bank statement and other correspondence, and decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21.
The tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant and/or, alternatively, had breached the claimant’s contract of employment, and that a claim arose or was outstanding on termination of employment. The judgment records that the unpaid sums related to wages for June and July 2021.
The tribunal ordered Adero Limited to pay Mr K Lee £2,325.44 gross in respect of wages/contractual pay. It also directed that the respondent account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due, and stated that payment of the net sum to the claimant would discharge the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant and/or alternatively had breached the contract of employment; it ordered payment of wages/contractual pay for June and July 2021. | Upheld | — | £2,325 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,325
- 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.