Case 1806769/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Mathers v Consultus First Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806769/2021
- Decision date
- 21 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Mathers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because the Respondent failed to present a response to the claim. The tribunal therefore dealt with the claim on the basis of the material before it and found that Consultus First Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mrs J Mathers' wages.
The tribunal also found that the Respondent had failed to reimburse the Claimant's expenses in breach of contract. It ordered the Respondent to pay £14,964.30 in respect of the wages claim and £5,857.86 as damages for the breach of contract claim.
The hearing listed for 28 February 2022 was cancelled after judgment was entered on 21 February 2022. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment is £20,822.16.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages and ordered payment of £14,964.30. | Upheld | — | £14,964 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the Respondent had failed to reimburse the Claimant's expenses in breach of contract and ordered damages of £5,857.86. | Upheld | — | £5,858 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,822
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £20,822
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.