Case 2414436/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Platts v Fluttr Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414436/2021
- Decision date
- 21 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dennehy Case
- Venue
- Manchester via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Platts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal allowed the respondent's late ET3. It then upheld Mrs K Platts's claim for unlawful deduction from wages, finding that Fluttr Ltd had not paid salary due for July, August, September and October 2021. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent was represented by Ms Galina Ratcliffe, Chief People Officer, and Mr Pullen, Co-Founder.
The tribunal ordered Fluttr Ltd to pay £15,000 gross for salary due for August, September and October 2021. It also ordered that, unless the respondent had issued 5 x £1,000 shares to the claimant within 28 days, it must pay £5,000 gross for July's salary. The judgment allowed deduction of income tax and national insurance contributions before payment. The hearing was at Manchester via CVP on 18 March 2022 and the decision was sent to the parties on 21 March 2022.
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 salary due for July, August, September and October 2021. It ordered £15,000 gross for August, September and October 2021, and unless the respondent issued 5 x £1,000 shares to the claimant within 28 days it ordered £5,000 gross for July's salary; if the shares were issued, that paragraph did not take effect. | Upheld | — | £20,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,000
- 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.