Case 2602919/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Ciesla v Rujia Marketing Consultants Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602919/2022
- Decision date
- 2 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Ciesla
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent had failed to present a valid response in time. Employment Judge Victoria Butler decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined without a hearing.
The tribunal found that Rujia Marketing Consultants Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mrs M Ciesla’s wages. The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded, and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £3,351.00 gross.
The judgment also recorded that the hearing listed on 24 March 2023 was cancelled. No other claim outcomes or separate remedy components were identified in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment was issued under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response in time. The judgment records that the claim was issued on 7 December 2023, although the judgment date is 2 March 2023. | Upheld | — | £3,351 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,351
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.