Case 1307559/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mrs M Corbett, Director — 2020
- Case reference
- 1307559/2019
- Decision date
- 27 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richardson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs J Terechova brought claims against Zerographic Systems Limited and Xavier Development Ltd. The tribunal held that her claims for unlawful deduction from wages and unpaid holiday pay were both well founded against both respondents.
The tribunal ordered respondent 1 to pay £715.94 and respondent 2 to pay £447.16. The judgment states that those sums are gross and subject to PAYE deductions. It does not break down the award between the two successful heads of claim.
The claimant's breach of contract claim against both respondents was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found this claim well founded against both respondents. The judgment awarded £715.94 against respondent 1 and £447.16 against respondent 2, but did not apportion those sums between this claim and the holiday pay claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid holiday pay well founded against both respondents. The judgment awarded £715.94 against respondent 1 and £447.16 against respondent 2, but did not split the figures between this claim and the unlawful deduction from wages claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's breach of contract claim against both respondents was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,163
- across all upheld claims
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.