Case 6009376/2025 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009376/2025
- Decision date
- 2 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Spencer
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge F Spencer determined this default judgment in London Central after the respondent did not appear and no response was presented to the claim. The Tribunal upheld the claimant Ms D Yohendran's claim under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unlawful deduction of wages).
The respondent Renaissance Personnel Limited was ordered to pay £27,240 in total, calculated as £19,120 for 1,600 hours of work at £11.95 per hour, £9,120 in holiday pay, and £4,780 in four weeks' notice pay (totalling £28,240), less £1,000 already received.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Wages of £19,120 (1,600 hours at £11.95/hour) plus £9,120 holiday pay plus £4,780 four weeks' notice pay; less £1,000 received. | Upheld | — | £27,240 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Wages of £19,120 (1,600 hours at £11.95/hour) plus £9,120 holiday pay plus £4,780 four weeks' notice pay; less £1,000 received. | Upheld | — | £27,240 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,240
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Part 2 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.