Case 1600846/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Martin v Modfix Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600846/2019
- Decision date
- 24 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ward Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ward gave a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mrs J Martin against Modfix Limited. The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £1,250. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £3,995.28 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £11,226.15. It also held that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £393.90. The total sum awarded on the judgment was £16,865.33.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross/net sum of £1,250 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,250 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,995.28. | Upheld | — | £3,995 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £11,226.15. | Upheld | — | £11,226 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £393.90. | Upheld | — | £394 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,865
- 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.