Case 2406203/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs D Carroll v Lee Wainwright — 2023

Case reference: 2406203/2023
Decision date: 4 September 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Franey Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs D Carroll

Respondent

Lee Wainwright

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Regional Employment Judge Franey determined the case under Rule 21. Mrs D Carroll's complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay succeeded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £174.42. The complaint in respect of unauthorised deductions from pay in relation to holiday pay also succeeded, with an award of £123.12 gross, and the complaint of breach of contract in relation to damage to the claimant's coat succeeded, with damages of £200.

The tribunal said the above awards were uplifted because the respondent failed to supply a written statement of the main terms of employment. It ordered a further two weeks' pay of £348.84, making the total payable under the judgment £846.38. The judgment was sent to the parties on 4 September 2023. The notice also records the standard interest information, including that interest would run from 5 September 2023 at 8% per annum if the award was not paid in full within 14 days.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	Complaint in relation to notice pay. The judgment ordered payment of £174.42.	Upheld	—	£174
Unlawful deduction from wages	Complaint in respect of unauthorised deductions from pay in relation to holiday pay. The judgment ordered payment of £123.12 gross.	Upheld	—	£123
Breach of contract	Complaint in relation to damage to the claimant's coat. The judgment ordered payment of £200 as damages for breach of contract.	Upheld	—	£200

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £846; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.