Case 2402701/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Kirton v A & T Trained Dogs Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402701/2022
- Decision date
- 10 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Kirton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard claims for unlawful deduction from wages, breach of contract, and automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant had less than two years' service, so for the unfair dismissal claim she had to prove that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that she had alleged an infringement of a relevant statutory right. The tribunal accepted that she had asserted such a right in her letter of 17 January 2022, which complained that the respondent had failed to pay a tax rebate due in November 2021 and threatened tribunal proceedings if it was not paid.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay the claimant the £731.40 tax rebate due on 30 November 2021. It made no order for payment because the amount was repaid at the end of January 2022 and no consequential financial loss was claimed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the respondent accepted an unlawful deduction for underpayment at the National Minimum Wage rate for 7-26 January 2022. | Upheld | — | £341 |
| Breach of contract | By consent, the respondent accepted breach of contract in dismissing the claimant without notice; the parties agreed this represented one week's notice pay at £8.36 per hour for 30 hours. | Upheld | — | £67 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 104 ERA 1996 because the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's letter of 17 January 2022 alleging an unauthorised deduction from wages. Remedy was left to a later hearing listed for 10 July 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £408
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 104(1)(b) ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 23 ERA 1996
- Smith v Hayle Town Council 1987 ICR 996 CA
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.