Case 2206387/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Blick, union representative For the v Mr J. Javed, director — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206387/2021
- Decision date
- 28 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Blick, union representative For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent's response was struck out under rule 37(1)(b) because the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted was unreasonable, and alternatively under rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with tribunal orders. The tribunal then dealt with the claimant's statutory complaint about pay statements.
The tribunal found that the respondent was in breach of its duty under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide the claimant with itemised pay statements with her pay. It found that the claimant was employed by the respondent from 28 September 2020 to 31 May 2021 and had been paid the net sums set out in the judgment without receiving itemised pay statements.
Applying sections 8, 11 and 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal identified the particulars that ought to have appeared on the statements for each pay date, including gross and net figures and deductions where applicable. For 30 March 2021, it recorded gross pay of £1,280, net pay of £1,100, and a £180 NI deduction in that employment tax year. The judgment extract does not record any monetary award or other financial remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Statutory complaint under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for failure to provide itemised pay statements. The tribunal also struck out the respondent's response under rule 37(1)(b), and alternatively under rule 37(1)(c). | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37(1)(b)
- rule 37(1)(c)
- section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 8, 11 and 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.