Case 1807262/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Armstrong v Digitalquill Ltd (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1807262/2020
- Decision date
- 5 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Armstrong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 5 April 2022 in Leeds by video, before Employment Judge Knowles, and with no attendance from the Respondent, the Tribunal found four monetary claims by Mr A Armstrong well founded. The claims were for unauthorised deduction from wages, unpaid holiday pay, breach of contract in respect of notice pay, and breach of contract in respect of expenses.
The Tribunal ordered Digitalquill Ltd (in administration) to pay Mr Armstrong £3,844.69 gross for the wages claim, £847.67 gross for holiday pay, £567.00 net for notice pay damages, and £828.00 for expenses. No discrimination, dismissal, or whistleblowing issues were determined in the judgment, and no separate legal tests were identified in the extracted reasons.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ordered to pay £3,844.69 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,845 |
| Holiday pay | Ordered to pay £847.67 gross. | Upheld | — | £848 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim; damages awarded in the net sum of £567.00. | Upheld | — | £567 |
| Breach of contract | Expenses claim; damages awarded in the sum of £828.00. | Upheld | — | £828 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,087
- 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.