Case 3201594/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Mitchell-Palmer v Evarine Nanyonga — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201594/2020
- Decision date
- 16 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Mitchell-Palmer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs D Mitchell-Palmer brought a claim for unlawful deduction of wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against Evarine Nanyonga. The respondent did not attend the hearing, did not present an ET3, and the tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and read the documents she supplied.
Employment Judge Crosfill found the claim well founded. The tribunal held that the respondent unlawfully deducted £210.97 from the claimant's wages for work done during the period 25 February 2020 to 9 April 2020.
The tribunal also found that, for the purposes of section 24(4), the claimant had incurred financial loss of £50.00 made up of interest and charges because the respondent failed to pay her on time. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £260.97 in total.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim well founded after the respondent failed to attend or present an ET3. It found an unlawful deduction of £210.97 from wages for work done between 25 February 2020 and 9 April 2020, and a further £50.00 financial loss arising from interest and charges. | Upheld | — | £261 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £261
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £211
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 24(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.