Case 3203057/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss O Budka v Wright’s of London — 2020
- Case reference
- 3203057/2019
- Decision date
- 4 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss O Budka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, after the claimant had provided details of the claim and how it was calculated in writing. The hearing listed for 4 May 2020 was cancelled.
It found that Wright’s of London had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss O Budka’s wages within section 24 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £542 forthwith.
The award comprised £527 wages due and unpaid, plus £15 to compensate for financial loss sustained as a result of the respondent’s failure to pay the wages when lawfully due.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £542, made up of £527 wages due and unpaid plus £15 for financial loss caused by late payment. | Upheld | — | £542 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £542
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 24 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.