Case 3306711/2024 · Employment Tribunal
1. Mrs S Morgan v 1066 Capital Ltd t/a Crystal Press and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306711/2024
- Decision date
- 12 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
Parties
3 namedClaimant
1. Mrs S Morgan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge proceeded to determine the claim under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered payment of £3,678.81 gross, described as two months' gross pay of £1,788.66 x 2 plus £101.49 pension contribution, subject to tax and National Insurance.
The tribunal also found that Mrs S Morgan was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,810.75. The judgment does not record any separate award of interest or any breakdown beyond those two sums, so the total monetary award is £10,489.56.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted text records the award as gross and subject to tax and National Insurance, comprising two months' gross pay of £1,788.66 x 2 plus £101.49 pension contribution. The text also records that the claim was presented on 19 July 2025, which appears inconsistent with the approval and send dates; no date has been inferred beyond the text. | Upheld | — | £3,679 |
| Redundancy | The claimant was found to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was held entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,810.75. The text also records that the claim was presented on 19 July 2025, which appears inconsistent with the approval and send dates; no date has been inferred beyond the text. | Upheld | — | £6,811 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,490
- 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.