Case 2304464/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(C1) Miss. Appelboom (C2) Ms. Bolden (C3) Mrs. Caffoor (C4) Ms. Coyle (C5) Ms. Williams v Yvette Matcham — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304464/2023
- Decision date
- 18 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(C1) Miss. Appelboom (C2) Ms. Bolden (C3) Mrs. Caffoor (C4) Ms. Coyle (C5) Ms. Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 18 October 2024, Employment Judge Sudra sat alone. Claimants 1 and 2 were unrepresented; the respondent did not attend. The tribunal held that Claimants 1 and 2's complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, failure to provide itemised payslips, and failure to give written statements of employment particulars were well founded and upheld.
Claimant 1 was awarded £217.85 for unauthorised deductions and £748.16 for the written statement complaint, giving a total of £966.01. Claimant 2 was awarded £6,001.06 for unauthorised deductions and £2,124.56 for the written statement complaint, giving a total of £8,125.62. The tribunal also declared that the respondent had failed and was failing to provide itemised payslips to Claimants 1 and 2 and urged it to begin doing so. The monetary awards recorded for Claimants 1 and 2 total £9,091.63, and each was payable within 14 days.
Claimants 3, 4 and 5's claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued; the written judgment does not specify the underlying complaint types for those claims.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claimants 3, 4 and 5's claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued. The written judgment does not specify the underlying complaint types. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant 1; complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages upheld. The tribunal awarded £217.85 for this complaint. | Upheld | — | £218 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant 2; complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages upheld. The tribunal awarded £6,001.06 for this complaint. | Upheld | — | £6,001 |
| Other | Claimant 1; failure to give a written statement of employment particulars upheld. The tribunal described this as a higher award of £748.16. | Upheld | — | £748 |
| Other | Claimant 2; failure to give a written statement of employment particulars upheld. The tribunal described this as a higher award of £2,124.56. | Upheld | — | £2,125 |
| Other | Claimants 1 and 2; the tribunal made declarations that the respondent had failed and was failing to provide itemised payslips and urged it to begin doing so. No separate monetary award was made. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,092
- 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.