Case 3306364/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Smith v Mr D Jarvis and Mrs L Jarvis — 2023
- Case reference
- 3306364/2022
- Decision date
- 7 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury St Edmunds by video on 3 January 2023 before Employment Judge C H O’Rourke. The Claimant, Miss R Smith, appeared in person. The Respondents, Mr D Jarvis and Mrs L Jarvis, were represented by Mrs L Jarvis.
The tribunal held that the Respondents were in breach of contract in respect of their only part-payment of the Claimant’s pay in lieu of notice. It ordered them to pay the balance due, which the judgment records as the agreed sum of £692.00.
The Claimant’s other claims, described in the judgment as claims for unlawful deductions from pay, arrears of holiday pay, and 'other payments', failed and were dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the Respondents were in breach of contract because they had made only part-payment of the Claimant's pay in lieu of notice and ordered payment of the balance due, agreed at £692.00. | Upheld | — | £692 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the Claimant's claim of unlawful deductions from pay failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to a claim for arrears of holiday pay, which failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a claim for 'other payments', but does not specify the underlying legal basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £692
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £692
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.