Case 2502839/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Wright v New Vision Design & Construction Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2502839/2019
- Decision date
- 12 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mrs C Wright against New Vision Design & Construction Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered it to pay £1,000 gross, subject to any required deductions of tax and national insurance.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. Damages of £500 were awarded for that claim, again subject to any required deductions.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,000 gross, subject to any required deductions. The listed hearing on 3 December 2019 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,000, subject to deductions required by law. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £500, subject to deductions required by law. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,000, subject to deductions required by law. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.