Case 1403400/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Wirefront Systems Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403400/2022
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Miss C. Ingram, brought claims against Wirefront Systems Ltd for unauthorised deductions from earnings and breach of contract. The hearing was held at Exeter by video on 19 May 2023 before Employment Judge Smail, with the Claimant appearing in person and the Respondent not appearing.
The tribunal held that both claims were well founded. It awarded the Claimant payment of August 2022 salary of £1,850 and September 2022 salary up to 14 September of £900, together with £1,850 for one month’s notice placed on garden leave. The judgment records a grand total of £4,600 net payable forthwith.
The judgment does not set out any separate liability analysis beyond stating that the claims were well founded, and it does not record any additional remedy elements such as interest, injury to feelings, or a breakdown by legal issue beyond the listed payment items.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found the claim for unauthorised deductions from earnings well founded. The award items attributed to this claim were August 2022 salary (£1,850) and September 2022 salary up to 14 September (£900), totalling £2,750. | Upheld | — | £2,750 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment found the breach of contract claim well founded. The award item corresponding to this claim was one month’s notice placed on garden leave (£1,850). | Upheld | — | £1,850 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,600
- 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.