Case 3300665/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented. For the v Bluebell Childminders Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3300665/2019
- Decision date
- 10 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Bloom Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unlawful deductions from wages, saying she had not been paid for the last month of her employment, December 2018. The respondent did not enter a response and did not attend the hearing. The claimant also did not attend, but her ET1 set out that the sum claimed was £1,163.80 net for that month.
The tribunal noted that the claimant later submitted a payslip showing her gross monthly pay as £1,465. On the papers before it, the tribunal was satisfied that the claim should succeed. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimant for the gross sum of £1,465, subject to statutory deductions, representing one month’s gross pay not paid in December 2018.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded the gross sum of £1,465 less statutory deductions for one month’s pay not paid in December 2018. The claimant’s ET1 had referred to £1,163.80 net, but a later payslip showed gross monthly pay of £1,465. | Upheld | — | £1,465 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,465
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.