Case 2300421/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Romary v Inspired Through Sport Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300421/2020
- Decision date
- 9 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Romary
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Tsamados found that Inspired Through Sport Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss L Romary's wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,272.37.
The tribunal also dealt with the claimant's notice-pay complaint and held that she was not entitled to damages for notice of dismissal, whether under statute or under the terms and conditions of her employment. The unfair dismissal complaint did not proceed because the tribunal found that the claimant had not been employed for at least two years and so it had no jurisdiction to determine that claim. The hearing listed for 19 November 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,272.37. | Upheld | — | £1,272 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant was found not entitled to damages for notice of dismissal either by statute or under the terms and conditions of her employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had not been employed for at least two years and therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal complaint. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,272
- 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.