Case 3201225/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Heidi Turnbull v Unity Enterprises East Anglia DEFAULT — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201225/2020
- Decision date
- 25 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Heidi Turnbull
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 default judgment because the respondent failed to enter a response. Judgment was entered in the claimant's favour on her unpaid wages claim, described in the order as a shortfall for March 2020. The amount awarded for that claim was £1,479.57.
The tribunal also made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had failed to issue the claimant with a statement of written particulars of employment. It ordered four weeks' pay at £634.62 per week, producing a further award of £2,538.48.
The total sum ordered was £4,018.05, made up of the unpaid wages award and the section 38 award. No separate award for injury to feelings, interest, or any other compensatory element was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under Rule 21 in respect of the claimant's unpaid wages claim. The award was described as 'Unpaid wages (Shortfall March 2020)'. | Upheld | — | £1,480 |
| Other | The respondent was ordered to pay 4 weeks' pay pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to issue the claimant with written particulars of employment. The judgment recorded this as 4 x £634.62. | Upheld | — | £2,538 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,018
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.