Case 2503598/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Armstrong v International 365 Coaching Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2503598/2019
- Decision date
- 8 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Armstrong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs G Armstrong was employed by International 365 Coaching Ltd until 8 July 2019, when she resigned. At the date of termination she was owed unpaid wages of £361 and payment for untaken accrued holiday of £380.
The claim proceeded under rule 21 because no response had been presented. The Employment Judge noted that there were related claims involving the same respondent or respondents with common directors and shareholders, and that the key issue had been the correct identity of the employer. At the hearing on 24 March 2020, Mr Maurice Duffy, the director and major shareholder of the respondent, was permitted to make observations and confirmed that none of the sums claimed was in dispute.
The tribunal was satisfied, following the preliminary hearing on the identity of the employer, that it had sufficient information to determine the claims. It found both the unlawful deduction of wages claim and the unlawful deduction claim for accrued and unpaid holiday pay to be well-founded, and ordered payment of £361 and £380 respectively, making a total award of £741.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of pay; tribunal ordered the gross sum of £361. | Upheld | — | £361 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued and unpaid holiday pay; tribunal ordered the gross sum of £380. | Upheld | — | £380 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £741
- 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.