Case 3201186/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Anwar v GLS Architects International Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201186/2020
- Decision date
- 5 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Anwar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after GLS Architects failed to file an ET3 within the time limit. The tribunal considered the information in Ms N Anwar’s ET1 and later correspondence and concluded that her claim for arrears of pay was well founded.
The judgment records the claim as one for arrears of pay brought either under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal ordered GLS Architects to pay £1,643.84 in wages.
The award was calculated by reference to 30 days’ pay at an annual salary of £20,000, expressed in the judgment as 30/365 x £20,000. The extracted text contains an internally inconsistent date range for the period covered, so the underlying dates are unclear from the extraction, but the monetary calculation and final award are clear.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment entered after the Respondent failed to file an ET3 in time. The tribunal found the Claimant’s claim for arrears of pay, brought either under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, was well founded. The award was calculated as 30 days’ pay at an annual salary of £20,000. The extracted text gives the pay period as '2/2/2020 to 31/1/2020', which appears internally inconsistent, so the date range is unclear in the extraction. | Upheld | — | £1,644 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,644
- 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.