Case 3305335/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr C Plume, HR Representative — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305335/2020
- Decision date
- 20 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was not a final merits determination. The tribunal had started hearing Ms Ansari's complaint of unpaid wages, but on 2 December 2021 the hearing was adjourned because further witness statements had been served late on behalf of the respondent's witnesses, including Ms F Kalhor and Ms Al Katib, and the claimant had not had a proper opportunity to consider them.
The judge adjourned to read the statements, and when the hearing resumed the claimant was too upset to continue. A further postponement was therefore granted, with the case re-listed for 4 February 2022 before Employment Judge Laidler. The judge noted that the credibility of the witnesses would matter, but that the central issue remained whether wages were unpaid. The judge also directed that no further witness statements or documents were to be tendered before the adjourned hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This judgment is procedural only. The tribunal had begun hearing the claimant's unpaid wages complaint, but no merits finding was made in this decision. | Other | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.