Case 2411455/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Forde v Advance Fitness Heswall Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2411455/2019
- Decision date
- 16 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Forde
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Forde brought claims against Advance Fitness Heswall Ltd for unlawful deduction of wages, holiday pay said to be due on termination, and breach of contract in relation to notice pay. The case was heard at Manchester on 26 November 2019 before Employment Judge Sharkett sitting alone.
The tribunal held that the claimant's unlawful deduction of wages claim was well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,256.60 in respect of wages owed and not paid.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's claim for payment in lieu of holiday accrued but not taken at the date of termination was well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £967 for that claim.
The breach of contract claim for notice pay was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The total award for the successful wage and holiday pay claims was £2,223.60, and the claimant was made responsible for any tax and national insurance contributions payable on both amounts.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim described as unlawful deduction of wages; tribunal found it well-founded and awarded £1,256.60 for wages owed and unpaid. | Upheld | — | £1,257 |
| Holiday pay | Claim was for payment in lieu of holiday accrued but not taken at termination; tribunal found it well-founded and awarded £967. | Upheld | — | £967 |
| Breach of contract | Claim related to notice pay; tribunal held it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,224
- 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.