Case 2203761/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Woods v Euthenia Asset Management Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203761/2021
- Decision date
- 29 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Woods
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at London Central on 29 October 2021 before Employment Judge A M Snelson, heard the Claimant in person by CVP and heard from Ms S Mokeddem, a director for the Respondent, which had presented no response. It determined that the Claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded and ordered the Respondent to pay £32,887 in respect of that claim.
The Tribunal also determined that the Claimant’s complaint of wrongful dismissal was well-founded and ordered the Respondent to pay damages of £12,308, stated to be four weeks' pay. The judgment notes that income tax and national insurance contributions may be payable on the awards under both paragraphs, and that payment of the net sum after any appropriate deductions would discharge the judgment.
The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £45,195. No separate apportionment of the award beyond the two claim-specific sums is set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was held well-founded; the Tribunal ordered payment of £32,887. | Upheld | — | £32,887 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Complaint of wrongful dismissal was held well-founded; the Tribunal ordered damages of £12,308, described as four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £12,308 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £45,195
- 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.