Case 2501011/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Jasmine Cree v Ethical Pay Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501011/2024
- Decision date
- 17 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Jasmine Cree
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Jasmine Cree presented an ET1 on 22 May 2024 alleging unauthorised deduction of wages against Ethical Pay Limited. The tribunal sent the claim to the respondent's registered office on 30 May 2024, the response deadline expired on 27 June 2024, and no response was received.
On 15 July 2024 the claimant provided further information setting out the amount claimed as wages, £1,677.00. Because there was no response from the respondent, the tribunal determined the matter on the papers under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, without a hearing.
The tribunal held that the complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages was well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,677.00, described as the gross sum deducted, and recorded that the claimant was responsible for any tax or national insurance due on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered under Rule 21 without a hearing because the respondent filed no response. The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages well-founded and awarded the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £1,677 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,677
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal 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.