Case 1600768/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Ellena Godfrey v Dr Caerwyn Ash — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600768/2022
- Decision date
- 4 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Webb Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Ellena Godfrey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Cardiff Employment Tribunal, heard by video on 27 March 2023 before Employment Judge N Webb, the tribunal held that Ms Ellena Godfrey was not unfairly dismissed under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was not wrongfully dismissed. It found that Dr Caerwyn Ash had made unauthorised deductions from wages because Ms Godfrey was not paid for the eight weeks she was employed; her weekly gross wage was £480.77 and the amount due was £3,486.16 gross.
The tribunal also upheld the complaint under regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It found that Ms Godfrey received nothing for accrued holiday at the end of her contract and calculated her entitlement at 4.3 days' leave, worth £415.67 gross.
On the Equality Act claims, the tribunal found no contravention of section 39 but did find harassment under section 40. It described the harassment claim as a serious case, awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings in the middle Vento band, and added £989.59 interest at 8% from the date of resignation to the hearing. The total order was £19,891.42.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant was not paid for eight weeks' work; the tribunal found £3,486.16 gross was due. | Upheld | — | £3,486 |
| Working time regulations | Accrued holiday pay claim upheld under regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998; 4.3 days' leave was valued at £415.67 gross. | Upheld | — | £416 |
| Other | The tribunal found no contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010; the extracted text does not identify the protected characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim upheld under section 40 of the Equality Act 2010; £15,000 was awarded for injury to feelings, with interest also ordered. | Upheld | — | £15,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,891
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 30(1)(b) Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 40 Equality Act 2010
- middle Vento band
- 8% annual interest
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.