Case 2304644/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. J. Moliusiene v James Chilton — 2019
- Case reference
- 2304644/2018
- Decision date
- 2 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sage Representation
- Venue
- London South Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. J. Moliusiene
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms. J. Moliusiene, brought claims against James Chilton. The respondent did not attend the hearing, which was held at London South Croydon on 2 August 2019 before Employment Judge Sage. The written record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay notice pay of £1,859, described as gross but to be paid net. It also ordered holiday pay of £482.49 gross. A further award of £2,144 gross but to be paid net was made for wages due and owing at the date of termination.
No separate reasoning is set out in the written judgment beyond the awards themselves, so the record does not identify the detailed findings or legal analysis behind each sum. The bottom-line monetary awards recorded in the decision total £4,485.49.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Awarded as notice pay, stated to be gross but payable net. The judgment does not expressly label the legal basis, so this classification is inferred from the head of award. | Upheld | — | £1,859 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as holiday pay gross. The judgment does not expressly state the statutory or contractual basis, so this is classified from the wording of the award. | Upheld | — | £482 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as wages due and owing at the date of termination, stated to be gross but payable net. The legal basis is not expressly stated in the written record. | Upheld | — | £2,144 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,485
- 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.