Case 6018312/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Sanna v Pierpoint International (UK) Ltd At: Central London Employment Tribunal — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018312/2024
- Decision date
- 17 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sarkis RULE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Sanna
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal determined this matter under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Respondent failed to file an ET3 and did not attend the CVP hearing on 15 January 2025. The Claimant attended but was unable to give evidence as she was in Italy, so the Tribunal considered the ET1 and decided the information in it provided a basis on which a determination could properly be made.
The Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be well-founded, on the basis that the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant for the week she worked from 14 October 2024. It ordered the Respondent to pay £576.92, being one week's gross pay calculated on a gross salary of £30,000.
The Tribunal also found the breach of contract complaint relating to expenses set out in the ET1 to be well-founded, and ordered the Respondent to pay £415 in respect of those expenses.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under Part II Employment Rights Act 1996; one week's pay from 14 October 2024 at gross salary of £30,000. | Upheld | — | £577 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in relation to expenses set out in the ET1. | Upheld | — | £415 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £992
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Part II 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.