Case 1600913/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Preece v Fen Group Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600913/2022
- Decision date
- 17 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Preece
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Preece brought a claim against Fen Group Ltd for unpaid wages. Employment Judge Brace recorded that the respondent had confirmed it did not resist the claimant’s claims, and that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal upheld the claim for unpaid wages and quantified the gross award at £12,727.27. The judgment does not set out any dispute on liability, and no separate reasons are given beyond the respondent’s non-resistance and the tribunal’s satisfaction that it had enough material to determine the matter.
The judgment also stated that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay. The extracted text does not set out a separate figure for holiday pay, so the only quantified award available from the judgment is the unpaid wages sum of £12,727.27.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment expressly upheld unpaid wages (gross) at £12,727.27 under Rule 21. It also stated that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay, but no separate holiday pay amount was set out in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | £12,727 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,727
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 2013
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.