Case 2501286/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J. Garratt v Net Zero Consulting North East Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501286/2024
- Decision date
- 2 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R.Smith Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J. Garratt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Newcastle Employment Tribunals on 7 June 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No liability hearing is recorded in the extracted text beyond that default process.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £3,789.67 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £3,087.60 in damages. In addition, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,893.50.
The judgment records a total amount payable of £9,770.77 forthwith. The hearing listed for 19 August 2024 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £3,789.67 gross forthwith. | Upheld | — | £3,790 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,087.60 forthwith. | Upheld | — | £3,088 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,893.50 forthwith. | Upheld | — | £2,894 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,771
- 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.