Case 2207936/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Prime Fire Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207936/2022
- Decision date
- 24 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grewal JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningPrime Fire Ltd did not file an ET3. Employment Judge Grewal therefore determined the matter on the papers under rule 21, without a hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant the correct salary up to 8 September 2022, notice pay for two months, holiday pay for four days, the correct pension contribution for August 2022, and expenses incurred for the period from August to 8 September 2022.
The judgment ordered payment of £1,184.62 for salary to 8 September 2022, £8,884.62 for notice pay, £592.31 for holiday pay, £146.76 for pension contribution for August, and £1,653.35 for expenses, giving a gross total of £12,461.66 subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. The judgment did not split the total award between separate claim heads.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Paragraph 3 records that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay the claimant the correct salary up to 8 September 2022. The judgment does not apportion the overall award between claim heads. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Paragraph 3 records unpaid notice pay for two months, the correct pension contribution for August 2022, and expenses incurred from August to 8 September 2022. The judgment does not label these items as separate legal heads or split the award between them. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Paragraph 3 records holiday pay for four days. The judgment does not apportion the award between claim heads. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,462
- 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.