Case 2602785/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Abuy Maye v Equality Diversity and Care Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602785/2020
- Decision date
- 13 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Abuy Maye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the respondent, Equality Diversity and Care Ltd, did not present a response after service at its registered office. The tribunal amended the respondent’s name to reflect its correct legal name.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered it to pay the claimant the gross sum of £2,110. The judgment does not set out any further factual findings beyond the default judgment basis.
The claimant also sought further compensation of £1,000, but that claim was dismissed because the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to award it on the basis claimed. All future hearings were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; respondent did not present a response. The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,110. | Upheld | — | £2,110 |
| Other | The claimant's claim for further compensation of £1,000 was dismissed because the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to award it on the basis claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,110
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.