Case 1601069/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Roberts v Highadmit Projects Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601069/2021
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Macdonald Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Roberts brought claims of unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages against Highadmit Projects Limited. The hearing took place at Cardiff Employment Tribunal by video on 24 and 25 March 2022 before Employment Judge E Macdonald. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint as not well-founded. It upheld the unlawful deductions from wages complaint under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996, as presented pursuant to s.23 ERA 1996, and ordered the respondent to pay £1,034.91 in respect of the deductions.
The tribunal then applied s.38 Employment Act 2002 and increased the award by an amount equal to two weeks' pay. The judgment records weekly pay of £461.54, so the increase was £922. The total amount ordered to be paid to the claimant was £1,956.92.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unlawful deductions complaint well-founded and ordered payment of £1,034.91. The award was then increased under s.38 Employment Act 2002 by two weeks' pay (£461.54 x 2 = £922), producing a total sum of £1,956.92. | Upheld | — | £1,957 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,957
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.