Case 2301913/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Mayfield v Gure Etxea Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301913/2019
- Decision date
- 11 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Mayfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the case was heard at Croydon on 11 September 2019 before Employment Judge Wright, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr S Hegazey and Ms M Hegazey. The claimant is named as Ms J Mayfield and the respondent as Gure Etxea Ltd.
The tribunal's substantive decision is very brief. It states only that the claimant's claims succeed in part and that the respondent is ordered to pay the gross sum of £266.23 to the claimant. The extracted text does not set out separate findings for the unlawful deduction from wages and working time issues, and it does not identify any further reasoning or legal test applied in the decision text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted text does not identify the specific basis for the partial success or allocate any sum to this claim type; it only states that the claimant's claims succeed in part and that a gross sum of £266.23 is payable. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted text does not identify the specific basis for the partial success or allocate any sum to this claim type; it only states that the claimant's claims succeed in part and that a gross sum of £266.23 is payable. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £266
- 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.