Case 2221241/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2221241/2024
- Decision date
- 12 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal amended the claim to join Chrysalis Connect Limited as the Fourth Respondent and dispensed with re-service on that respondent. It recorded that the claim had been served on the First and Third Respondents, who were directors of the Fourth Respondent, and that they had not presented responses or communicated with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was engaged by the Fourth Respondent as a worker within section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claims against the First, Second and Third Respondents were dismissed.
The complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages was found well founded against the Fourth Respondent. The Fourth Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £1,962, subject to any deductions for income tax and national insurance contributions due, with deducted sums to be paid to HMRC and confirmed to the Claimant in writing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages was well founded against the Fourth Respondent. Claims against the First, Second and Third Respondents were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £1,962 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,962
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.