Case 3202250/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lillian Hart v Joop Leisure Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202250/2019
- Decision date
- 18 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JONES Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Lillian Hart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment. The respondent was served on 2 November 2019 but did not present a response by the 2 December deadline or at all. The tribunal therefore determined the claim on the basis of the presented papers and the unchallenged figures in the claim.
The tribunal found that Joop Leisure Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Ms Lillian Hart's wages by failing to pay her full wages for the period 29 April 2019 to 22 June 2019 inclusive. It found that she worked 129 hours at £7.70 per hour, so she was due £993.30. Against that, she had been paid £210 on 3 May 2019.
On those figures, the tribunal recorded that the outstanding balance was £783.30 and awarded Ms Hart payment of £783 as outstanding wages, ordering the respondent to pay the gross sum of £783.00. The hearing listed for 3 February was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent did not present a response. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages for 29 April 2019 to 22 June 2019. The text records a calculated balance of £783.30, while the order was for £783.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £783 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £783
- 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.