Case 2503621/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Winship v Cygnet Events Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2503621/2019
- Decision date
- 8 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Winship
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss K Winship was employed by Cygnet Events Ltd until 6 August 2019, when she resigned. At the date of termination she was owed unpaid wages of £1,750 for July 2019 and £40 in travel expenses.
No response was presented by the respondent. The tribunal dealt with the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and, after a preliminary hearing on the identity of the employer, was satisfied that it had sufficient material to determine the claims. At the hearing, Mr Maurice Duffy attended for the respondent and confirmed that none of the sums claimed was in dispute.
The tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim and the breach of contract claim. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,750 gross in respect of unpaid wages and £40 in damages for unpaid expenses, making a total award of £1,790.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for arrears of pay well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,750. | Upheld | — | £1,750 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim for breach of contract in relation to unpaid expenses well-founded and ordered damages of £40. | Upheld | — | £40 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,790
- 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.