Case 1802539/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Miller v Independent Home Living Limited and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802539/2021
- Decision date
- 20 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Youngs Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss T Miller
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Miss T Miller was employed by the third respondent, A New Angle Ltd, and was not an employee or worker of the first or second respondents, Independent Home Living Limited and 123 AP Limited. Her claims against the first and second respondents were therefore dismissed.
The tribunal found that she had suffered an unlawful deduction from wages by the third respondent in the sum of £4,107.90. However, A New Angle Ltd had been dissolved, so no judgment could be made against it. The claimant was given two months to write to the tribunal if she intended to apply for restoration of the company to the Companies House register, but she did not do so. The claim was therefore dismissed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant was employed by the third respondent, A New Angle Ltd, and that she was not an employee or worker of the first or second respondents, so the claims against those respondents were dismissed. The tribunal also found that she suffered an unlawful deduction from wages by the third respondent in the sum of £4,107.90, but the third respondent had been dissolved and no judgment could be made against it. The claimant was given two months to apply for restoration of the company to the register, but did not do so, so the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.