Case 2205721/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lizann DCosta v Wright Family Office Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2205721/2023
- Decision date
- 15 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Lizann DCosta
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge E Burns determined the claim on the papers under rule 21 because Wright Family Office Ltd did not file an ET3. The judge considered the ET1 and further information and documents supplied by Ms Lizann DCosta and decided the claim could properly be determined without a hearing.
The judgment records that the respondent had not paid salary for 1 February to 28 February 2023 in the sum of £3,510, or for 1 March to 15 March 2023 in the sum of £2,463. It also records unpaid annual leave of 4 days carried forward from 2022 to 2023, valued at £657, and 7 days of 2023 annual leave, valued at £936.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Ms DCosta the gross sum of £7,566, less any deductions for tax and national insurance that the respondent is required to account for to HMRC. No separate split of the award beyond the itemised sums in paragraph 3 is given in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Awarded for unpaid salary for 1 February to 28 February 2023 (£3,510) and 1 March to 15 March 2023 (£2,463). | Upheld | — | £5,973 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for 4 days of 2022 annual leave carried forward to 2023 (£657) and 7 days of 2023 annual leave (£936). | Upheld | — | £1,593 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,566
- across all upheld claims
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.