Case 2205772/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Reynolds v M Project Management Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205772/2019
- Decision date
- 27 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grewal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Reynolds
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, in a Rule 21 judgment, found Miss J Reynolds' complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages to be well-founded and ordered M Project Management Ltd to pay £12,500 gross. The judgment does not set out further reasons beyond that finding.
The tribunal also found the breach of contract complaint well-founded and awarded damages of £24,536.40, described in the judgment as 3 months' net pay plus expenses. No separate breakdown beyond that description is provided.
A further claim for holiday pay for accrued holidays under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was also upheld, with an award of £3,956. The judgment records Employment Judge Grewal and states that the judgment was sent to the parties on 27 April 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages well-founded and ordered payment of £12,500 gross. | Upheld | — | £12,500 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract complaint well-founded and awarded damages of £24,536.40, described as 3 months' net pay plus expenses. | Upheld | — | £24,536 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for holiday pay for accrued holidays under the Working Time Regulations 1998 well-founded and ordered payment of £3,956. | Upheld | — | £3,956 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £40,992
- 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.