Case 2406082/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Amy Quinn v The Retrofit Team Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2406082/2023
- Decision date
- 13 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Amy Quinn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place on 5 February 2024 before Employment Judge Cline sitting alone. The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The judgment records that the respondent had failed to comply with the case management orders dated 9 August 2023 and with the response direction in the strike-out warning dated 30 October 2023, and that it had also asked shortly before the hearing for alternative dates after saying it could not attend.
The tribunal ordered that the respondent’s response be struck out. It then recorded that the claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages by way of unpaid wages was well-founded, and awarded her £717.50 gross for that claim. It also recorded that the claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages by way of unpaid notice pay was well-founded, and awarded her a further £717.50 gross.
The total gross sum deducted from wages was therefore £1,435. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance on the award. No separate reasons were provided in writing because reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deduction from wages by way of unpaid wages; held well-founded and awarded a gross sum of £717.50. | Upheld | — | £718 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deduction from wages by way of unpaid notice pay; held well-founded and awarded a gross sum of £717.50. | Upheld | — | £718 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,435
- 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.