Case 2603112/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S K Jagus v Carl Butterfield — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603112/2020
- Decision date
- 18 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S K Jagus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Camp recorded that Miss S K Jagus succeeded against Carl Butterfield on three monetary claims. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant without notice or pay in lieu and ordered £200 in damages for breach of contract.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £535.52. The judgment notes that the claimant had double-claimed for 12 weeks' underpaid furlough payments, and that she was awarded £215.52, being the higher of the two figures she had claimed.
Finally, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant for accrued holiday entitlement and ordered compensation of £360. The total payable by the respondent to the claimant was stated to be £1,095.52.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the respondent dismissed the claimant without notice or pay in lieu and must pay £200 in damages for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £200 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment awards £535.52 for unauthorised deductions from wages. It also notes that the claimant double-claimed for 12 weeks' underpaid furlough payments and that she was awarded £215.52, being the higher of the two figures she claimed. | Upheld | — | £536 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant for accrued holiday entitlement and must pay compensation of £360. | Upheld | — | £360 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,096
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.