Case 2301914/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J smith v Laptonics Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301914/2021
- Decision date
- 25 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 26 May 2021 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore made a rule 21 determination on the papers. On that basis, the tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,467 gross.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's claim for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £225 gross. It upheld the claim for unpaid holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £501 gross. In addition, it awarded compensation for breach of section 1 ERA 1996 in the sum equivalent to four weeks' pay, assessed at £900 gross.
The tribunal further ordered a 25% uplift of £492 gross on the unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay awards. The claimant was ordered to pay any sums due to HMRC in respect of tax or national insurance. The total award was £3,585 gross.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal also awarded a 25% uplift of £492 jointly on the unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay claims. | Upheld | — | £1,467 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £225 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal also awarded a 25% uplift of £492 jointly on the unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay claims. | Upheld | — | £501 |
| Other | Described in the judgment as compensation for breach of section 1 ERA 1996, calculated as the equivalent of four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £900 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,585
- 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.