Case 1805760/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss I Ramsay v Eastman Staples Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805760/2021
- Decision date
- 14 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss I Ramsay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Eastman Staples Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Miss Ramsay's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay her gross sums of £2,761.64 for unpaid wages and £646.15 for accrued but untaken holiday entitlement as at the termination of employment, with tax and National Insurance Contributions to be deducted from those gross amounts.
The tribunal also found that Miss Ramsay terminated her employment in breach of contract. It ordered her to pay the respondent damages of £3,040.81. The written record does not identify any further legal test or detailed reasoning, and the decision was given by Employment Judge Maidment sitting alone at Leeds on 14 April 2022.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered gross payment of £2,761.64 for unpaid wages and £646.15 for accrued but untaken holiday entitlement, less tax and National Insurance Contributions. | Upheld | — | £3,408 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant terminated her employment in breach of contract and ordered her to pay the respondent damages of £3,040.81. | Upheld | — | £3,041 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,449
- 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.