Case 1806186/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Montisci v Innoval Technology Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806186/2020
- Decision date
- 22 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Montisci
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Leeds on 22 June 2021, Employment Judge Maidment sitting alone recorded two monetary orders in favour of Mr S Montisci against Innoval Technology Limited. By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £950.63 in respect of unpaid commission.
The claimant's complaint seeking damages for breach of contract, identified in the judgment as notice pay, succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £8,162.71. The judgment does not set out any further factual findings or identify any legal test beyond recording the orders made.
The claimant's application for costs by way of a preparation time order was refused. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that, by consent, the respondent was ordered to pay this gross sum in respect of unpaid commission. The judgment does not specify a separate legal label for this item. | Settled | — | £951 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's complaint for breach of contract, identified in the judgment as notice pay, succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay this gross sum. | Upheld | — | £8,163 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,113
- 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.