Case 1400728/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Mr Tutt CONSENT — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400728/2022
- Decision date
- 21 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment in which the tribunal recorded that Miss Jade Wrenn had not been paid the same as her like work comparator, Richard Lessiter, from 24 August 2018 to 22 February 2022, the date of the claim form. The judgment does not contain contested findings on liability; instead, it records the agreed terms between the parties.
Under the consent judgment, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,831. The judgment states that this amount includes figures to be deducted for tax and national insurance. Payment was to be made within 10 days.
No separate remedy breakdown is given beyond the single gross sum, and the judgment does not refer to any additional heads of loss, interest, or other statutory awards.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Consent judgment recorded that the claimant had not been paid the same as her like work comparator, Richard Lessiter, from 24 August 2018 to the date of the claim form on 22 February 2022. The respondent agreed to pay the gross sum of £1,831, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance, within 10 days. | Settled | — | £1,831 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,831
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.