Case 2603950/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Caitlin Allsop v Adel Investments Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2603950/2020
- Decision date
- 11 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkey Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Caitlin Allsop
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Caitlin Allsop brought claims against Adel Investments Limited (in voluntary liquidation) and the respondent did not attend or have representation. The tribunal first dealt with limitation for the claim relating to wages due on 8 May 2020, finding that although it had been presented outside the time limit, it was not reasonably practicable for it to be presented in time and it was issued within such further period as was reasonable within s.23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated the claim for unpaid wages due on 8 May 2020 and 14 August 2020 as an unauthorised deduction from wages. It recorded that the claim for the 8 May 2020 deduction was presented outside the normal time limit, but found it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and that it was brought within such further period as was reasonable under s.23 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £434 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for failing to pay the correct amount in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday. | Upheld | — | £333 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to pay the correct amount of notice pay due to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £135 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £902
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.