Case 3300107/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss F Neesom v And Smo Media Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3300107/2020
- Decision date
- 3 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss F Neesom
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, SMO Media Limited, did not present a response to the claim. The tribunal therefore entered judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 in favour of the claimant, Miss F Neesom, on the claims before it.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,955.00 in respect of unlawful deductions from wages. It also ordered payment of £923.07 as compensation for breach of contract, and separately recorded that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £923.07.
A further award of £901.53 was made in respect of accrued holiday pay. The judgment does not record any other issues, legal reasoning, or deductions, and it does not identify any lay members because it was issued by Employment Judge Anstis alone.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered under Rule 21 after no response was presented. | Upheld | — | £2,955 |
| Breach of contract | Award described as compensation for breach of contract under the Rule 21 judgment. | Upheld | — | £923 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal stated that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment in this amount. | Upheld | — | £923 |
| Holiday pay | Award stated to be in respect of accrued holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £902 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,703
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £923
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.