Case 2303570/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss CS Lopez-Perez v Weedoo Direct International Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303570/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones QC
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss CS Lopez-Perez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss CS Lopez-Perez brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages against Weedoo Direct International Ltd. The respondent had notice of the claim and hearing but did not attend, and no ET3 was on the file. Employment Judge Jones QC heard evidence from the claimant and determined the claim in her favour.
The tribunal found that the claimant started work on or about 11 February 2019 and that her employment ended on 9 March 2019, a period of 26 days. The judge accepted that there was no written contract of employment, that the intended salary shown in the job advertisement was £1,400 gross per month, and that this equated to a daily rate of £46.03. The claimant had taken 4 days off on an expressly unpaid basis, leaving 22 paid days due.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not paid any salary for her period of employment and that this amounted to a breach of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It therefore awarded her £1,012.66, calculated as 22 days at £46.03 per day.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had not paid any salary for the claimant's period of employment and that this was an unlawful deduction from wages under s.13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,013 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,013
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 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.