Case 1404326/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Jones v Digital Mauve Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1404326/2022
- Decision date
- 24 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Youngs Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the correct legal name of the respondent was Digital Mauve Ltd. It found that Mrs A Jones was entitled to be paid her full pay for the period 1 September 2022 to 30 September 2022, but she received no pay for that period.
The tribunal also found that Mrs A Jones incurred £88.50 of expenses in September 2022, that those expenses had been approved, and that they were not paid. On that basis, the tribunal held that the claim for unlawful deductions from wages succeeded in relation to the unpaid September pay, and the breach of contract claim succeeded in relation to the unpaid expenses.
The respondent was ordered to pay £2,692.98 net of deductions for the wages claim and £88.50 by way of damages for breach of contract. No separate award headings were set out beyond those two sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to full pay for 1 September 2022 to 30 September 2022, but received no pay for that period. | Upheld | — | £2,693 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant incurred £88.50 of expenses in September 2022, which had been approved but not paid, amounting to breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £89 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,781
- 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.