Case 2500595/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Shaurna Brinkworth v GKTR Fitness Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500595/2022
- Decision date
- 9 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heather Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Shaurna Brinkworth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Shaurna Brinkworth, attended the hearing and represented herself. The respondent, GKTR Fitness Limited, did not appear or take part. The case was heard remotely at the Employment Tribunal at Newcastle upon Tyne on 9 September 2022 before Employment Judge Heather Appearances.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed. The judgment records no further reasons in the written decision beyond the outcome, and notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
The tribunal found that the complaint of unlawful deductions from wages was well founded and succeeded. It ordered the respondent to pay arrears of pay in the gross sum of £1,644.64, before deductions for tax and national insurance as appropriate. The tribunal also found that the complaint of failure to pay holiday pay was well founded and succeeded, awarding £121.60 gross.
The complaint of failure to pay notice pay was also found well founded and succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay £339.58 net for notice pay. The total amount due to the claimant was recorded as £2,105.82.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as arrears of pay in the gross sum of £1,644.64. | Upheld | — | £1,645 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as holiday pay in the gross sum of £121.60. | Upheld | — | £122 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as notice pay in the net sum of £339.58. | Upheld | — | £340 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,106
- 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.