Case 2304733/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Cater v Smart Interior Fit Out Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304733/2019
- Decision date
- 23 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Cater
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Martin Date found that Smart Interior Fit Out Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mrs J Cater's wages. The respondent was ordered to pay £1,230 net in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered damages of £1,230 net. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,003.70 net.
The judgment concludes by stating a total sum of £2,007.40. The individual awards listed in the reasons section do not mathematically reconcile with that total, so the judgment text is internally inconsistent on the arithmetic of the awards, but the itemised findings and amounts are recorded as stated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment orders payment of £1,230 net for the unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,230 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment orders damages of £1,230 net for breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,230 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment orders payment of £1,003.70 net for unpaid holiday entitlement. The judgment then states a total sum of £2,007.40, which does not reconcile with the three itemised awards in the text. | Upheld | — | £1,004 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,007
- 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.