Case 3201634/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Rodgers v 900 Productions Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201634/2019
- Decision date
- 1 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Rodgers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Gardiner heard evidence from the Claimant, Miss A Rodgers, and the Respondent did not attend. The tribunal held that the Respondent was required to pay £585 gross in respect of 58.5 hours worked at £10 per hour. The judgment records that this was an unauthorised deduction of wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also awarded £15 as damages for breach of contract arising from the Respondent's failure to reimburse travelling expenses. No separate split of the award beyond those two sums is recorded in the judgment, and no further remedy such as interest or compensation is mentioned.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant for 58.5 hours worked at £10 per hour, amounting to an unauthorised deduction of wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £585 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal awarded damages for the Respondent's failure to reimburse the Claimant's travelling expenses. | Upheld | — | £15 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £600
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 ERA 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.