Case 2409773/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Paili v Refuel Forecourt Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409773/2022
- Decision date
- 25 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Farrelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Paili
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Farrelly, sitting alone at Manchester on 15 May 2023, disposed of three claims brought by Mrs P Paili against Refuel Forecourt Limited. The breach of contract claim in relation to notice failed because the tribunal found that the claimant had resigned, so that claim was dismissed.
The unpaid wages claim succeeded only to the extent that the respondent accepted that £10 net was due. The judgment records that the amount arose from a miscalculation by the respondent in calculating wage entitlement, and the tribunal ordered payment of that sum.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction, the claimant having worked for less than two years. The written record states that the total sum payable by the respondent to the claimant was £10 net.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim in relation to notice failed because the tribunal found the claimant had resigned. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent accepted that £10 net was owed because of a miscalculation in wage entitlement. | Upheld | — | £10 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction as the claimant had worked less than two years. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10
- 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.