Case 2503517/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Hall v Cygnet Events Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2503517/2019
- Decision date
- 24 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Miss L Hall brought a claim for unlawful deduction of wages against Cygnet Events Ltd. No response was presented by the respondent. The tribunal first dealt with the identity of the employer, following an earlier telephone hearing at which Mr Duffy attended and stated that he did not employ Ms Hall, while Ms Hall later confirmed that Cygnet Events Ltd was her employer and the proceedings were re-served on that company.
The tribunal was satisfied, on the available material, that Ms Hall had been employed by Cygnet Events Ltd as a train conductor for just over one month and that her employment ended on 4 August 2019. It found that at the date of termination she was owed her wages, calculated at £7.50 per hour for 114 hours of work, producing a total of £855.
The claim of unlawful deduction of wages was therefore found well-founded and the respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £855. No separate award for interest or other heads of loss was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the claim of unlawful deduction of wages well-founded and ordered payment of the gross sum of £855. The tribunal accepted that Ms Hall was employed by Cygnet Events Ltd, that her employment ended on 4 August 2019, and that she was owed wages for 114 hours at £7.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £855 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £855
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.