Case 2301916/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Lauren Fillery v London Sash Window Repairs Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301916/2022
- Decision date
- 17 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lauren Fillery
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at London South on 14 October 2022 before Employment Judge B Smith sitting alone. The claimant, Lauren Fillery, was represented by a lay representative and the respondent, London Sash Window Repairs Ltd, by a solicitor. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to include unfair dismissal and other matters said not to form a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunals.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims for unlawful deduction from wages, notice pay, and holiday pay were dismissed upon withdrawal. It also found that the claim for breach of regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was not well-founded and dismissed it. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim for breach of regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.