Case 3201365/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Romero-Munoz v Kyle Spencer (sole trader) trading as A1 Architecture FINAL HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201365/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Romero-Munoz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs E Romero-Munoz's claims were heard remotely at East London Hearing Centre on 10 January 2024 before Employment Judge S Shore, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent not appearing. The tribunal found that the claimant's claim of unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and succeeded.
In respect of that claim, the tribunal ordered the respondent, Kyle Spencer (sole trader) trading as A1 Architecture, to pay the claimant two months' pay for March and April 2023, calculated as 2 x £1,666.66 and amounting to £3,333.32 gross. The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of particulars of employment under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The written statement claim was treated as a claim listed in Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2022 and also succeeded. The tribunal ordered payment of four weeks' pay at 4 x £384.62, totalling £1,538.48 gross. The judgment recorded a total payable of £4,971.80 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; tribunal awarded two months' pay for March and April 2023. | Upheld | — | £3,333 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996; tribunal noted the claim was listed in Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2022 and awarded four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,538 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,972
- 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.