Case 2500863/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Alison Lees v PMG (101) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500863/2022
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alison Lees
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAlison Lees brought a complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for failure to pay wages, described in the reasons as sick pay. She said she worked 24 hours a week, went on sick leave in January 2022, and had not been paid since 1 February 2022. She calculated the unpaid sick pay as 9 weeks at £96.35 and 11 weeks at £99.35, totalling £1,960.
The respondent did not present a valid response. Applying rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the Employment Judge was satisfied on the available material that wages of £1,960 were payable in respect of a continuous period of sick leave over 20 weeks. The judge found the weekly sums were properly payable, that the shortfall amounted to a deduction, and that there was no contractual authority or written consent justifying any deduction. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimant in the gross sum of £1,960.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was for failure to pay wages, described in the reasons as sick pay. The tribunal awarded the gross sum of £1,960. | Upheld | — | £1,960 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,960
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 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.