Case 2603531/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Cobley v The Montessori Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603531/2020
- Decision date
- 6 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Cobley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 26 November 2021 before Employment Judge Heap sitting alone, and with no attendance or representations for the respondent, the tribunal upheld the claimant's claim that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,668.32 net.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and awarded £2,354.40 in respect of the notice to which she was entitled on termination. In addition, it found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy but had not been paid a redundancy payment, and ordered payment of £3,727.80.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, so written reasons were not provided unless later requested. The monetary awards recorded in the judgment total £8,750.52.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £2,668.32 net. | Upheld | — | £2,668 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and awarded £2,354.40 in respect of notice pay. | Upheld | — | £2,354 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy but had not been paid a redundancy payment; it ordered £3,727.80. | Upheld | — | £3,728 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,751
- 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.
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.