Case 3326004/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Asad v And Luke Fines and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 3326004/2019
- Decision date
- 6 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms M Asad
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was entered under Rule 21 because no respondent had submitted a response within the time limit or applied for an extension of time.
The claimant had brought claims against Luke Fines, Reptasia Limited and The Finest Reptiles & Exotics Limited. The tribunal dismissed the claims against The Finest Reptiles & Exotics Limited because the claimant had only provided an early conciliation certificate for “Luke Fines, Reptasia”.
The tribunal found that the claimant was owed unpaid wages and awarded £849.73 net compensation. Luke Fines and Reptasia Limited were ordered to pay that sum to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant was owed unpaid wages and awarded £849.73 net compensation against Luke Fines and Reptasia Limited. | Upheld | — | £850 |
| Other | Claims against The Finest Reptiles & Exotics Limited were dismissed because the claimant had only provided an early conciliation certificate for “Luke Fines, Reptasia”. The underlying claim type against that entity is not specified in the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £850
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £850
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.