Case 3302600/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Mattocks v Genius Lab Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302600/2023
- Decision date
- 18 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Mattocks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Ms J Mattocks against Genius Lab Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,171.62, subject to any lawfully required PAYE deductions and without any other deduction or set-off.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's requests for additional damages said to arise from the non-payment, including damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and interest charges on bills or loans. It said those claims were not within the tribunal's jurisdiction and that such damages were not appropriate for this type of complaint.
For avoidance of doubt, the judgment states that it is against Genius Lab Ltd, and complaints against any other respondent were dismissed as a result of the decision to substitute Genius Lab Ltd for any other potential respondent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,171.62, subject to any lawfully required PAYE deductions but without any other deduction or set-off. | Upheld | — | £1,172 |
| Other | Claims for additional damages arising from the non-payment, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, and interest charges on bills or loans, were dismissed as outside the tribunal's jurisdiction and because such damages were not appropriate for this type of complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,172
- 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.