Case 3301832/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Willocks v Leavy Community UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301832/2023
- Decision date
- 25 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Willocks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Quill sat alone at Watford on 20 December 2023 under Rule 21 after Leavy Community UK Ltd did not file a response and did not appear. On the papers and the claimant's evidence, the tribunal found that Ms R Willocks had a contract of employment with the respondent and that, under that contract, she was entitled to be paid £480 for the relevant period.
The tribunal therefore ordered Leavy Community UK Ltd to pay damages for breach of contract in the sum of £480. It also recorded that, had it not been satisfied there was a contract of employment, it would have found that Ms Willocks was a worker within s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that there had been an unauthorised deduction from wages of £443.55. The judgment was sent to the parties on 25 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £480 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states in the alternative that, had the tribunal not been satisfied there was a contract of employment, it would have found the claimant was a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 and that there had been an unauthorised deduction from wages of £443.55. No separate award was made on that basis. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £480
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 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.