Case 2207636/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. B. Singh v Aerotek Staffing Consultancy UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207636/2021
- Decision date
- 30 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. B. Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The tribunal therefore considered the ET1 and decided that a determination could properly be made without a hearing under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.
On that basis, Regional Employment Judge Wade found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant expenses owed to her. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £686.99. The extracted judgment refers to a breakdown of the sum at Annex 1, but the annex text is not included in the supplied extract.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment says the respondent failed to pay the claimant expenses owed to her and orders payment of £686.99. The statutory label is not stated in the text; classification follows the gov.uk listing category and case hint. | Upheld | — | £687 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £687
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.