Case 2202109/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Juliet Linsley v Spire Kool Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202109/2019
- Decision date
- 10 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Juliet Linsley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment. Ms Juliet Linsley was employed by Spire Kool Limited from 24 October 2018 to 8 May 2019, when she resigned on notice because her wages had not been regularly paid. No response was presented by the respondent, and the tribunal proceeded on the basis of the claim form and remedy statement.
For the unlawful deduction from wages claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had only been paid £1,808.15 on 11 December 2018, £1,300 on 1 March 2019, and £1,200 on 15 March 2019, a total of £4,308.15. On the evidence before it, her net salary was £656.46 per week and should have totalled £18,380.88 over 28 weeks, leaving £14,072.73 unpaid. The tribunal also accepted that she had 10 days of accrued but untaken holiday pay worth £1,312.90 under reg. 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, which it also treated as an unlawful deduction from wages.
The tribunal separately accepted that there was an oral agreement with Jeff Kirby, described as the respondent's CEO, for two weeks' wages as compensation for late payment of salaries. It found that this sum had not been paid and awarded £1,312.92 in damages for breach of contract. The tribunal said it classified this head of claim as breach of contract rather than unlawful deduction from wages because it did not have sufficient information to determine that the sum was payable on a particular occasion within s.13(3) ERA 1996.
The tribunal noted that the claimant also sought losses said to flow from looking for alternative work, but held those were not recoverable in an unlawful deduction from wages or breach of contract claim. It further noted claims for unquantified losses arising from late salary payments, but said no order could be made on that basis and observed that any such compensation payment already agreed would likely need to be set off under s.25(3) ERA 1996. The total award ordered was £16,698.55, payable within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment. The tribunal found the claimant had been underpaid wages of £14,072.73 and had also not been paid £1,312.90 in accrued holiday pay under reg. 14(2) WTR 1998, both treated as unlawful deductions from wages under s.13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £15,386 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal accepted that the claimant had an oral agreement with Jeff Kirby, the respondent's CEO, for two weeks' pay as compensation for late payment of salaries. It found that sum was not paid and awarded damages of £1,312.92, treating it as breach of contract rather than an unlawful deduction claim because s.13(3) ERA 1996 was not satisfied on the material before it. | Upheld | — | £1,313 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,699
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- reg. 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
- s.25(3) ERA 1996
- rule 21(2) 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.