Case 3303442/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Calvo Garcia v Madame Posh Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303442/2024
- Decision date
- 1 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baran
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Calvo Garcia
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Reading by CVP on 27 March 2025 before Employment Judge Baran sitting alone. The respondent, Madame Posh Limited (in voluntary liquidation), did not attend. The claimant, Miss S Calvo Garcia, succeeded on her complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's pay for the period 1 January 2024 to 31 January 2024 and ordered payment of £432.46 gross.
The claimant also succeeded on her breach of contract claim relating to notice pay. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £3,958.00 as damages for breach of contract, and recorded that the figure was calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would be taxed on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. The total monetary award was £4,390.46.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction in respect of 1 January 2024 to 31 January 2024 and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £432 |
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay. The tribunal awarded damages of £3,958.00, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would be taxed on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £3,958 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,390
- 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.