Case 2300485/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Johns v Artificial Solutions UK Ltd (in Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300485/2021
- Decision date
- 27 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Johns
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent failed to enter a response to the claim and did not attend or participate in the hearing. Employment Judge Ferguson, sitting alone, gave judgment at London South Employment Tribunal by video on 27 March 2023.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £14,700. It also found that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed and made a compensatory award of £4,702.
The Tribunal further found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,940. The holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The total award was recorded as £22,342, with a prescribed element of £4,702 and a balance of £17,640.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £14,700 |
| Unfair dismissal | Compensatory award made for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £4,702 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum ordered for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £2,940 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,342
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £4,702
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.