Case 3205215/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Sandra Luff v The Independent Windscreen Academy Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205215/2022
- Decision date
- 24 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sugarman Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sandra Luff
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSandra Luff brought claims for unlawful deduction from wages, breach of contract, discrimination under the Part-time Worker (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal found that wages due at the end of July and August 2022 had not been paid, and that pension contributions due for July and August 2022 had not been paid.
The tribunal upheld the Part-time Worker Regulations claim under Regulation 5, finding that the claimant had been treated less favourably because she was not paid in July and August 2022 and because she was constructively dismissed. No separate award of compensation was made on that claim.
The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant resigned on 1 September 2022 in response to a fundamental breach of contract, identified as the failure to pay her wages in July and August 2022. The unfair dismissal claim succeeded under ss95, 98 and 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,740 and a compensatory award of £2,186.72, including loss of earnings, pension loss and loss of statutory rights.
The tribunal recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply because the claimant had not received any relevant benefits in the prescribed period. The total sum ordered to be paid in respect of all successful claims was £6,822.76 net.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded under section 13 ERA 1996 in respect of unpaid wages that fell due at the end of July and August 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,662 |
| Breach of contract | Succeeded in respect of unpaid pension contributions for July and August 2022. | Upheld | — | £29 |
| Part-time worker regulations | The tribunal found less favourable treatment contrary to Regulation 5 because the claimant was not paid in July and August 2022 and because she was constructively dismissed. No separate award of compensation was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant resigned on 1 September 2022 in response to a fundamental breach of contract, namely the failure to pay her wages in July and August 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,205 |
| Unfair dismissal | Succeeded under ss95, 98 and 111 ERA 1996. The award comprised a basic award of £1,740 and a compensatory award of £2,186.72, made up of loss of earnings, pension loss and loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £3,927 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,823
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,740
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,187
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 5 of the Part-time Worker (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- ss95, 98 and 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.