Case 3201156/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Isabela Lourenco v Crystal Clear Hygiene Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201156/2023
- Decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Travers Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Isabela Lourenco
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe parties reached an agreement at the remote hearing before Employment Judge H Travers that the respondent would pay the claimant £400 net of tax in settlement of all outstanding claims under case number 3201156/2023. The only claims outstanding at the time of settlement were for alleged unauthorised deduction from wages and for notice pay.
The tribunal recorded that, upon payment of the £400, all outstanding claims would be deemed withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. Mr Cavanagh, a director of the respondent, told the tribunal that payment would be processed by payroll on Friday 24 May 2024, and the claimant understood that this payment would bring the proceedings to an end.
The judgment provided that if the sum was not paid by 4pm on 29 May 2024 (or by the date the judgment was sent if later), the respondent was required to inform the tribunal in writing and explain the delay, with the matter potentially being listed for further directions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Settled at hearing; respondent to pay £400 net of tax in settlement of all outstanding claims. Claim deemed withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. Award not split per claim. | Settled | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim settled at hearing as part of the £400 net global settlement; deemed withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. Award not split per claim. | Settled | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £400
- 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.