Case 1302058/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Abigail Whitelegg v We Are Moving Forward Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1302058/2022
- Decision date
- 12 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Abigail Whitelegg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 after the Respondent failed to present a response within the relevant time limit. Employment Judge Faulkner therefore determined the claim in default on the basis of the material before the Tribunal.
The Claimant, Mrs Abigail Whitelegg, succeeded in her claim for unlawful deduction from wages in respect of arrears of pay. The Tribunal found that claim well founded and ordered the Respondent to pay a gross amount that would leave the Claimant receiving a net sum of £2,739.70.
The Claimant also succeeded in her breach of contract claim concerning pension deductions that had been made but not paid to her pension provider. The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay £833.20 in respect of that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim well founded in respect of arrears of pay and ordered the Respondent to pay such gross amount as would result in the Claimant receiving a net sum of £2,739.70. | Upheld | — | £2,740 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that pension deductions were made but not paid to the pension provider and ordered payment of £833.20. | Upheld | — | £833 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,573
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.