Case 2301061/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G. Anderson v Ms C. Woolston ( AKA Jade Lotus) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301061/2022
- Decision date
- 6 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G. Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms G. Anderson was a worker of the respondent within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, and on the facts before it, the tribunal held that her complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was well founded.
The judgment records that the respondent, Ms C. Woolston (AKA Jade Lotus), did not attend the hearing. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £170 forthwith. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was a worker within section 230(3) ERA 1996 and held that the unlawful deduction from wages complaint was well founded. The respondent did not attend. | Upheld | — | £170 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £170
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230(3) ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.