Case 1800995/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Jenna Woolley v Global World Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800995/2023
- Decision date
- 19 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Elliott
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Jenna Woolley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Jenna Woolley, brought claims against Global World Services Limited. The respondent did not present a response, did not attend the hearing, did not apply for postponement, and did not ask for written representations to be taken into account. The tribunal therefore proceeded in the respondent’s absence at Leeds before Employment Judge G Elliott sitting alone.
The tribunal found that the respondent was in breach of contract because it dismissed the claimant without notice. It ordered the respondent to pay £380 gross as damages for breach of contract, subject to applicable deductions for tax and employee national insurance contributions.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages. It ordered payment of £1,909.04 gross in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted, also subject to applicable deductions for tax and employee national insurance contributions. The total gross sum awarded was £2,289.04.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice and ordered payment of £380 gross, subject to deductions for tax and employee national insurance contributions. | Upheld | — | £380 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £1,909.04 gross, subject to deductions for tax and employee national insurance contributions. | Upheld | — | £1,909 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,289
- 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.