Case 2500104/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Douglas v Sayed Trading Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500104/2020
- Decision date
- 7 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Douglas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss L Douglas presented a claim for unlawful deduction of wages on 17 January 2020. It was initially rejected because of a discrepancy in the proposed respondent’s name, then accepted on correction on 23 January 2020. The respondent’s late response was rejected on 7 March 2020, so the tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the available material.
A telephone preliminary hearing took place on 7 April 2020. Miss Douglas attended in person and gave further information. The tribunal recorded that she had been employed by Sayed Trading Ltd for seven weeks from 23 September 2019 to 12 November 2019, was entitled to be paid £8.21 an hour, and worked between 40 and 44 hours a week as a kitchen porter at the respondent’s restaurant.
The tribunal found that she had not been paid during her employment. The only payment received was on 12 December 2019, when she was paid for 55 hours in the sum of £451.55. On the evidence given at the hearing, the tribunal found that 153 hours remained unpaid and that the respondent had failed to pay £1,256.13 in arrears of pay, which it ordered to be paid as a gross sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for arrears of pay well founded and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,256.13. | Upheld | — | £1,256 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,256
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 18 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.