Case 3302386/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Bird v Digital Line Media Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302386/2023
- Decision date
- 20 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Bird
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment against Digital Line Media Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Miss J Bird's wages and ordered payment of £1,915.54. That sum was made up of £1,556.56 in October wages, £79.90 in expenses and £279.08 in NEST contributions.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £389.14. In addition, it found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £778.28, calculated as two weeks at £389.14. The total sum awarded was £3,082.96.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,915.54, comprising £1,556.56 October wages, £79.90 expenses and £279.08 NEST contributions. | Upheld | — | £1,916 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £389.14. | Upheld | — | £389 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £778.28, calculated as 2 weeks at £389.14. | Upheld | — | £778 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,083
- 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.