Case 2216802/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Patil v The Nutri Cosmetic Company Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216802/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Patil
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge entered judgment on liability under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent did not file a response within the required time limit. The claim had been served at the respondent's registered address, the response deadline was 31 January 2024, and no application to extend time was made at the hearing.
At the hearing the respondent admitted that the claimant started work on 1 September 2023 and that he was suspended on an unpaid basis during September 2023. It also conceded that the claimant had done some work before the suspension, and that this work had not been paid.
On those concessions, the Judge was satisfied that the respondent owed the claimant some pay for the short period he worked there. The claim under this case number therefore succeeded, but the amount due was not quantified in this judgment.
The claim was listed for a default judgment remedy hearing, and the claimant was directed to send the basis of his calculation to the Tribunal in advance of that hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Liability was determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to file a response in time. Quantum was not decided in this judgment and was listed for a default judgment remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.