Case 3324372/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Sammy v Rockfort Inc Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3324372/2019
- Decision date
- 30 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Sammy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Hyams found for the claimant, Mr A Sammy, against Rockfort Inc Ltd. The tribunal held that the respondent owed the claimant £537 gross by way of unpaid wages.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to give the claimant statements of his pay in accordance with section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for the months of March, April, May and June 2019. The extracted judgment does not record any further findings, any separate monetary award for that failure, or any additional remedy beyond the unpaid wages sum.
The judgment was sent to the parties on 4 June 2020. No lay members are listed and no discrimination characteristics are identified in the decision text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent owed the claimant £537 gross by way of unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £537 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to give the claimant statements of pay for March, April, May and June 2019, contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £537
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.