Case 3305683/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Colleen Cannon v Flix Works Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305683/2024
- Decision date
- 29 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Colleen Cannon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place by telephone at Watford on 30 June 2025 before Employment Judge MJ Smith. The respondent did not attend, and the tribunal proceeded in its absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The tribunal held that the claimant's claim for unlawful deduction of wages was well-founded and allowed it. No separate reasons were provided in writing because the judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and no request for written reasons was made within the stated time limit.
The tribunal awarded the claimant £33,367.52 gross. The judgment describes this sum as being for unpaid wages and notice pay, but it does not separate the award into distinct heads of loss. The written record therefore records only the overall monetary award, without further explanation of the calculation.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded £33,367.52 gross for unpaid wages and notice pay. The award was not split between those components in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £33,368 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £33,368
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.