Case 2600148/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Webster v Intesa (Leicester) Limited Heard: via Cloud Video Platform — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600148/2021
- Decision date
- 7 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Webster
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Webster worked for Intesa (Leicester) Limited as a sales advisor from 3 August 2020 to 24 August 2020, working entirely from home. The tribunal found that she had to buy a headset to do the job and that it was agreed she would be reimbursed £30, but the respondent never repaid that sum. It also found that she was not paid for the three weeks she worked and had accrued holiday pay that was not paid on termination.
The tribunal dealt first with time limits. It found that the original claim presented on 22 October 2020 was in time for both unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract, although it named the wrong respondent. The claimant had issued the first claim herself without legal advice and had genuinely mistaken Richard Logan for the correct respondent. When the Employment Tribunal later pointed out the error, she started a further period of Early Conciliation and filed the second claim within four days.
For the wages complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to £878.31 net pay for the three weeks she worked, plus £74.98 holiday pay, making £953.29 in total. It found that the respondent’s failure to pay that amount on 6 October 2020 amounted to an unlawful deduction from wages. For the contract claim, the tribunal found that the failure to reimburse the headset cost was a breach of contract. The tribunal therefore upheld both complaints and ordered the respondent to pay £983.29 in total.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unpaid net salary of £878.31 for three weeks' work plus accrued holiday pay of £74.98, totalling £953.29. | Upheld | — | £953 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent had agreed to reimburse the claimant for a headset she bought for £30 and had not done so. | Upheld | — | £30 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £983
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, Article 3
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, Article 7
- not reasonably practicable
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.