Case 2408537/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Common-Wicks v Aquaspira Limited CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under the provisions of — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408537/2021
- Decision date
- 4 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson Date
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Common-Wicks
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis corrected judgment records that the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so far as it related to the period before April 2019, was dismissed on withdrawal. No monetary award is recorded for that complaint.
The tribunal also recorded that the respondent conceded the claimant was employed under a contract of employment from April 2019 and that, throughout the period covered by her Equality Act 2010 complaints, she had been engaged to do work personally. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider the claimant's remaining complaints. This corrected judgment does not record the substantive outcome of those remaining complaints.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The corrected judgment states that the complaint for unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 ERA 1996, for the period before April 2019, was 'dismissed on withdrawal'. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.