Case 2301774/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Kumar v Residenza Properties Battersea Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301774/2021
- Decision date
- 9 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Curtis Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Kumar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Residenza Properties Battersea Limited had failed to pay Miss G Kumar for days worked between 1 and 12 April 2021. It ordered payment of £424.44, described in the judgment as the total net sum deducted.
It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment. The tribunal ordered payment of £188.64, described as the total net sum owed.
In addition, the tribunal awarded £576.92 as additional compensation under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The total award recorded in the judgment was £1,190.00.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant for days worked between 1 and 12 April 2021 and awarded the net sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £424 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment and awarded the net sum owed. | Upheld | — | £189 |
| Other | Additional compensation awarded pursuant to section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £577 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,190
- 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.