Case 2302759/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Samantha Sullivan v Logical Flooring Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302759/2024
- Decision date
- 13 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Samantha Sullivan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public CVP hearing on 2 October 2024, Employment Judge Tsamados, sitting alone, heard Ms Samantha Sullivan in person. The respondent, Logical Flooring Ltd (in voluntary liquidation), did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract were well-founded.
The respondent had admitted that the final payment included wages and accrued annual leave, but had not provided a payslip breaking the figures down. The tribunal recorded the claimant's usual monthly salary as £6,666.66, her entitlement to 24.8 days' annual leave accrued during employment, and the fact that she had taken 12 days paid leave. On that basis, 12.8 days remained outstanding and were valued at £3,938.46.
After deducting the amount received, the tribunal found that £1,784.61 remained owing in respect of holiday pay. It also awarded statutory pay in lieu of one week's notice of £923.07 and unpaid expenses of £102.24. The total award was £2,809.92 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld this head of claim but did not allocate the monetary awards between this claim and the breach of contract claim; all figures were stated gross. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal upheld this head of claim but did not allocate the monetary awards between this claim and the unlawful deductions claim; all figures were stated gross. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,810
- 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.