Case 2209260/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Me and My Health Ltd and S MacLennan — 2023
- Case reference
- 2209260/2023
- Decision date
- 27 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued by Employment Judge Woodhead at Central London Employment Tribunal on 27 July 2023 in the claim brought by Alessia Montalto against Me & My Health Ltd and Stuart MacLennan. The judgment records that the claims against the Second Respondent were dismissed upon withdrawal. It also states that the Claimant’s claim relating to pension payments would be determined later on the papers and without a further hearing.
The First Respondent did not present an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. On that basis, and pursuant to rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the Tribunal held that the Claimant’s claim of unauthorised deduction from wages was well founded.
The First Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £606.31 for the period from 1 January 2023 to 16 January 2023. The judgment does not set out any separate breakdown of that sum into different remedy heads.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment was entered against the First Respondent after it failed to present an ET3. The judgment also records that the claims against the Second Respondent were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Upheld | — | £606 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £606
- 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.