Case 6000348/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. O M Gogemeata v Rug Artisan Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000348/2024
- Decision date
- 20 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. O M Gogemeata
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 5 February 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Heap determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal proceeded without a response from the respondent and made findings on the pleaded claims.
The tribunal found that Rug Artisan Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay £1,292.16 net. It also found that the respondent discriminated against Ms O M Gogemeata because of pregnancy or maternity and ordered payment of £6,726.72 in compensation for that claim. The total amount ordered was £8,018.88.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,292 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £6,727 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,019
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £6,727
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.