Case 2402762/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Beaty v European Medical Reporting Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402762/2024
- Decision date
- 5 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Beaty
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the tribunal determined the claim without a hearing and cancelled the hearing listed for 13 November 2024.
The tribunal found that European Medical Reporting Services Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mrs C Beaty's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £6,733.93, described as unpaid wages for the period 25 August 2023 to 9 May 2024.
The written record also gave the standard interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It stated that the relevant decision day was 4 November 2024, the calculation day was 5 November 2024, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum if the award remained unpaid after the applicable period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The order covered unpaid wages for 25/8/2023 to 9/5/2024. | Upheld | — | £6,734 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,734
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.