Case 2206458/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Wilson v Adventox Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206458/2021
- Decision date
- 8 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Regional Employment Judge Wade therefore considered the ET1 and decided that the remaining claims could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay salary and notice pay to Ms C Wilson. The judgment does not quantify the sums owed at this stage.
The claimant was ordered to send the tribunal a breakdown of the sums she said were owed within 21 days, so that judgment could then be entered for those sums against the respondent. The hearing listed for 21 and 22 April 2022 was cancelled because judgment had been given in the claimant’s favour.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay salary. No sum was quantified in the judgment; the claimant was directed to send a breakdown of sums owed within 21 days so judgment could be entered for those sums. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay notice pay. No sum was quantified in the judgment; the claimant was directed to send a breakdown of sums owed within 21 days so judgment could be entered for those sums. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules 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.