Case 2502077/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Day v Urban Candle Company Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2502077/2019
- Decision date
- 27 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Representation
- Venue
- North Shields Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Day
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Day brought a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages against Urban Candle Company Limited. The claimant attended in person. The respondent did not attend or appear and had not submitted a response form ET3.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about what she should have been paid and found that none of the monies due to her by way of wages had in fact been paid. It therefore held that the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also amended the proceedings to reflect the correct respondent name as Urban Candle Company Limited after considering the employment document signed by Mr Matthew Patterson and given to the claimant on 2 January 2019. It noted that the proceedings had likely already come to the respondent's attention and saw no prejudice in making that amendment.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £4,421.27 to the claimant in respect of wages unlawfully deducted. It stated that the amount was gross and that the claimant was responsible for any income tax and national insurance contributions on it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of £4,421.27 in respect of wages unlawfully deducted and stated that this was a gross amount, with the claimant responsible for income tax and national insurance contributions. | Upheld | — | £4,421 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,421
- 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.