Case 2601584/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Pizane v Smoothies and Bites Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601584/2021
- Decision date
- 8 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Pizane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment on part of the claim after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge determined that the tribunal could properly decide the claim, or part of it, in accordance with Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the claims that were adjudicated, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,697.90 gross in respect of those deductions.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. For that failure, it ordered payment of compensation equivalent to two weeks' pay, stated in the judgment as £500. All future hearings were cancelled, and the total monetary award recorded by the judgment was £2,197.90.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,697.90 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,698 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars and awarded compensation equivalent to two weeks' pay, stated as £500. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,198
- 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.