Case 2305019/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Amy Morris v Leah Durrant Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305019/2024
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Wilson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Amy Morris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard in public by video on 16 January 2025 before Employment Judge N Wilson. The claimant, Amy Morris, appeared in person with support; the respondent, Leah Durrant Limited, was represented by Ms Z Hussain.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, finding it was not well founded. It also dismissed the complaint of notice pay on the same basis, again recording that the complaint was not well founded. No remedy was awarded for either claim.
The complaint in respect of holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. The written decision does not record any monetary award or any separate remedy calculations.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the complaint of notice pay was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the complaint in respect of holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.