Case 2502357/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Stansmore-Glenc v Down Tools CIC — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502357/2022
- Decision date
- 14 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Stansmore-Glenc
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 14 February 2023, Employment Judge Jeram sat alone and heard the case by CVP. The claimant, Ms B Stansmore-Glenc, appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages well founded and ordered Down Tools CIC to pay £1,166.00 for the period 23 August 2022 to 22 September 2022, subject to deductions for income tax and national insurance.
The tribunal also found well founded the claim that the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of particulars complying with s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996, and ordered payment of £466.40, subject to deductions for income tax and national insurance. It further upheld the claimant's notice pay claim and awarded £233.20 as compensation. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for the period 23 August 2022 to 22 September 2022; subject to deductions for income tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,166 |
| Other | Claim that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of particulars complying with s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996; subject to deductions for income tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £466 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. | Upheld | — | £233 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,866
- 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.