Case 2216910/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Predictive Black Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216910/2023
- Decision date
- 17 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to file an ET3 response. Employment Judge Lewis therefore decided the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the basis of the ET1 alone. The hearing listed for 27 June 2024 was cancelled.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's salary for August, September, October and November 2023. It calculated the unpaid salary at £1,416.66 per month, producing a total of £5,666.64, and ordered the respondent to pay that amount as a gross payment. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax payable on the sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The respondent did not file an ET3. Under rule 21, the Tribunal found salary due for August, September, October and November 2023 had not been paid and ordered a gross payment of £5,666.64. The judgment records one sum and does not apportion it between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent did not file an ET3. Under rule 21, the Tribunal found salary due for August, September, October and November 2023 had not been paid and ordered a gross payment of £5,666.64. The judgment records one sum and does not apportion it between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,667
- 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.