Case 2405897/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Connell v Westminster Designs Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2405897/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Connell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs E Connell's claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded. The tribunal recorded that the claim was brought under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered the respondent, Westminster Designs Limited, to pay £9,568.00 for 52 weeks at £184.00 per week.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. For that failure, it made a higher award of 4 weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, stating that it was just and equitable in all the circumstances to do so. That sum was £736.00, calculated at the same weekly rate of £184.00.
The total sum ordered was £10,304.00. The decision was issued by Employment Judge Howard after a remote hearing on 12 February 2024, and the written judgment was sent to the parties on 22 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim under Part II ERA 1996 succeeded. The award attributed to this head was 52 weeks at £184 per week, totalling £9,568.00. | Upheld | — | £9,568 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars and made a higher award of 4 weeks' pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002, being £736.00 at £184 per week. | Upheld | — | £736 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,304
- 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.