Case 2603644/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Woodhead v Dave Densham — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603644/2020
- Decision date
- 22 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Venue
- Lincoln
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Woodhead
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Blackwell, sitting alone at Lincoln by Cloud Video Platform on 4 January 2021, gave judgment in favour of Miss A Woodhead on all three pleaded claims. The tribunal recorded that the claim of unlawful deduction from wages succeeded, the claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded, and the claim for failure to pay notice pay also succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the Respondent, Dave Densham, to pay £1,507.52 gross for the unlawful deduction claim, £430.72 in respect of the written particulars claim under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, and £99.02 as damages for notice pay. The total ordered was £2,037.26. The written judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,508 |
| Other | Award made in respect of the failure to provide written particulars of employment pursuant to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with the higher amount awarded under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £431 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for failure to pay notice pay. | Upheld | — | £99 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,037
- 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.