Case 3319876/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Lerones de la Fuente v Karim Prince Tshibangu and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3319876/2019
- Decision date
- 17 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss E Lerones de la Fuente
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim for arrears of pay on 29 June 2019, saying that her employer had failed to pay her last week of work as a member of the crew of the film 'Shepherd'. She said her weekly pay before tax was £600 and that her employment ended on 5 April 2019. The tribunal was satisfied that she had complied with the early conciliation requirements.
Neither respondent filed a response and neither attended the hearing. The first respondent's papers had been returned marked 'addressee unknown', and the claimant had no other address for him. The tribunal therefore decided the case on the papers before it.
On that material, the tribunal found that the claimant was due £600 as unpaid wages. The only difficult issue was which respondent was her employer and therefore owed the money. On the balance of probabilities, the tribunal concluded that in film production she was more likely to have been employed by a company than by an individual, and so the second respondent was liable.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the claimant's account that she was owed her final week's pay. It found the second respondent liable for the unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £600
- 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.