Case 1400694/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v C Armstrong — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400694/2023
- Decision date
- 20 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Lumby Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the correct identity of the respondent was Chuttanatron Armstrong. It then found that the claimant succeeded in his claims for breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages, and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,415.50, described in the judgment as unpaid wages.
The record states that the parties agreed a payment schedule for that sum. The respondent was to pay £215.50 by the end of September 2023, followed by equal monthly payments of £200 in October, November and December 2023 and January, February and March 2024, each by the end of the relevant month. The judgment also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal upheld this claim together with the unlawful deduction from wages claim and ordered payment of a single gross sum of £1,415.50 for unpaid wages. The judgment does not split the award between the two claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld this claim together with the breach of contract claim and ordered payment of a single gross sum of £1,415.50 for unpaid wages. The judgment does not split the award between the two claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,416
- 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.