Case 3307249/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms H Suleman (representative) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307249/2023
- Decision date
- 19 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hunt Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms J Bemmett, brought claims including wrongful dismissal and unauthorised deduction from wages against Guildford Manor Hotel and Spa. At the hearing on 31 January 2024 before Employment Judge Hunt, the wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal found, under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996, that the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was well-founded. It held that the respondent failed to pay the wages properly payable to the claimant for the period 16 January 2023 to 4 March 2023, and that this period included the claimant's minimum notice period under s.86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £3,578.70. The tribunal made no order for the fee for legal advice sought by the claimant, stating that there was no good basis on which to award costs under the Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay wages properly payable for 16 January 2023 to 4 March 2023, including the claimant's minimum notice period under s.86 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £3,579 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,579
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.