Case 3200513/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Ince v The Butterfly Rooms (Inc Woodlands) Ltd Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200513/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Ince
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the telephone hearing on 20 February 2023 before Employment Judge Crosfill, the claimant indicated that the parts of her case relating to occupational pension matters should be dealt with by the Pensions Ombudsman. The tribunal recorded that the claim for employer pension contributions was withdrawn rather than dismissed, and that the pension-related deductions of £37.67 and £32.87 were stayed pending the outcome of the ombudsman complaint, with a further note that they would be dismissed if not actively pursued by 31 May 2023.
The claimant succeeded on her holiday pay claim under Regulations 16 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found that she had accrued but not taken 1.5 days of annual leave beyond what had already been paid, and ordered the respondent to pay £142.22 for that entitlement.
The tribunal also found that £1,422.18 had been unlawfully deducted from the claimant's final instalment of wages in November 2021, and ordered payment of that sum. In relation to the claimant's further deduction claim for £248.74, the tribunal held that £178.20 deducted for the period ending 30 November 2020 was lawful because it was a deduction on account of sickness or absence, while the pension-related items were stayed rather than finally determined in the judgment.
The separate unlawful deduction claim relating to sums due under the furlough schemes was dismissed. The judgment recorded a total award of £1,564.40, subject to deductions required by law through PAYE.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim about failure to make employer pension contributions was withdrawn. The judgment recorded that the related sums of £37.67 and £32.87 were stayed pending the claimant's complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman, and that the claim was not dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay under Regulations 16 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded to the extent of 1.5 days' annual leave not already paid. | Upheld | — | £142 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim that £1,422.18 was unlawfully deducted from the claimant's final instalment of wages in November 2021 was found well founded. | Upheld | — | £1,422 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Further claim for £248.74 deducted from wages was only partially resolved: £178.20 was found lawful as a deduction for sickness or absence, and the pension-related sums of £37.67 and £32.87 were stayed pending the Pensions Ombudsman. No final monetary award was made on this claim in the judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions from wages relating to sums due under the furlough schemes was dismissed. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,564
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulations 16 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.