Case 2217088/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Barbosa Jacob v The Patio London — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217088/2023
- Decision date
- 22 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Barbosa Jacob
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Akhtar determined this claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 without a hearing, after the respondent failed to file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The judge considered the ET1 and decided the claim could properly be determined on the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimant in September 2023. On the figures recorded in the judgment, the claimant's gross monthly pay was £2,666.66; the respondent had paid £1,333.33 in September 2023 and a further £600 in February 2024, leaving £733.33 gross outstanding.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £733.33 gross, subject to deductions for any tax and national insurance for which the respondent should account to HMRC. The hearing previously listed on 8 March 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment: respondent failed to file ET3. Tribunal found £733.33 gross unpaid wages for September 2023 (gross monthly pay £2,666.66 less £1,333.33 paid in September 2023 and £600 paid in February 2024). | Upheld | — | £733 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £733
- 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.