Case 3201892/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Morales Munoz v GLS Architects International Limited and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201892/2023
- Decision date
- 19 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Iman Representation
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss Morales Munoz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at the East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 19 June 2024 before Employment Judge Iman. The claimant, Miss Morales Munoz, represented herself; none of the three respondents attended. The judgment addresses two complaints brought against the respondents.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out and dismissed. The complaint of unlawful deduction of wages was found to be well founded against the first respondent, GLS Architects International Limited. The tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay the claimant £2,311.99, calculated as £2,375 gross salary plus £936.99 holiday pay less £1,000 already received.
The sum awarded is gross, and the first respondent was made responsible for deducting and paying any tax or national insurance at source. The brief judgment text does not record reasons, legal tests, or analysis beyond the calculation set out above.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out and is dismissed. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the complaint well founded and ordered the first respondent to pay £2,311.99 gross (£2,375 gross salary plus £936.99 holiday pay less £1,000 received to date). The first respondent is responsible for deducting tax/NI at source. | Upheld | — | £2,312 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,312
- 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.