Case 2502545/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Rochester v Tandem Together Contact Centres Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502545/2023
- Decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Rochester
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Miss A Rochester, was employed by Tandem Together Contact Centres Limited as a Utility Procurement Consultant from 05 June 2023 to 20 September 2023, on a gross weekly salary of £572.91. She resigned on 13 September 2023 with an effective termination date of 20 September 2023, and was due to be paid three weeks' wages of £1,718.73 gross on 30 September 2023, but received no payment then or thereafter. The Respondent did not present a response to the proceedings served on its registered office.
Employment Judge Sweeney, proceeding under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, was satisfied that a determination could properly be made on the available material. The Judge concluded that the wages properly payable on 30 September 2023 were not paid and that the failure to pay amounted to a deduction for which there was no contractual or statutory authority. The claim for arrears of pay consisting of unpaid wages was held to be well founded, and the Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £1,718.73.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: no response presented by the Respondent. The Tribunal found the unpaid wages were properly payable and the failure to pay amounted to a deduction without contractual or statutory authority. | Upheld | — | £1,719 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,719
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 16 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.