Case 2407601/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Jennifer Procida-Galea v Studio Album Brands Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2407601/2021
- Decision date
- 14 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Jennifer Procida-Galea
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Sharkett, sitting alone at Manchester by CVP on 12 August 2021, held that the correct respondent was Studio Album Brands Limited and dismissed A Light Bulb Moment Limited as a party. The case was determined on the papers before the tribunal, with the claimant appearing in person and no appearance for the respondent.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages complaint. It found that the respondent failed to make any payment of wages for work done during the claimant's employment, and that the sum due was £2,373 for work carried out in April and May 2021.
The judgment ordered the respondent to pay £2,373 to the claimant. The judgment also stated that the claimant would be responsible for accounting to HMRC for employee tax and national insurance contributions only. No separate award components were identified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that Studio Album Brands Limited made an unlawful deduction from wages by failing to make any payment to the claimant for work done during her employment. A Light Bulb Moment Limited was dismissed as a party to the proceedings. | Upheld | — | £2,373 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,373
- 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.