Case 2401213/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Bobi Smith v Kamex Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401213/2024
- Decision date
- 19 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Krepski Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Bobi Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Bobi Smith, brought claims against Kamex Ltd that were heard at Manchester ET by CVP on 13 September 2024 before Employment Judge Krepski. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal gave oral judgment at the hearing and later issued the written record of the decision on 19 September 2024.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £1,046 gross, being the amount unlawfully deducted. It also found the holiday pay complaint well-founded, holding that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when the claimant's employment ended, and ordered payment of £249.12 gross.
The tribunal further found that the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice and awarded £196 gross in damages for that breach. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance, and the total gross award across the claims was £1,491.12.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,046 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £249 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £196 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,491
- 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.