Case 3202351/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Rachanaa Jain v Primary Cargo Newport Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202351/2019
- Decision date
- 18 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Rachanaa Jain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The respondent was served on 6 November 2019 but did not present a response by the deadline of 4 December 2019 or at all. On that basis, the tribunal entered judgment in the claimant's favour without attendance at the listed hearing, which was then cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages by failing to pay any wages for the period 2 August 2019 to 3 September 2019 inclusive. It also found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant any holiday pay.
The tribunal further found that the respondent failed to reimburse expenses reasonably incurred by the claimant in her work. The remedy was assessed as a gross sum of £1,798, made up of unpaid wages of £1,600, holiday pay of £148, and expenses of £50.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions were found because the respondent failed to pay any wages for 2 August 2019 to 3 September 2019 inclusive. | Upheld | — | £1,600 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay any holiday pay. The award was calculated as £148.00. | Upheld | — | £148 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent failed to reimburse expenses reasonably incurred by the claimant in her work. | Upheld | — | £50 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,798
- 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.