Case 3309083/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Read v Maxcap Wealth Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309083/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Welch
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Read
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Welch, sitting alone at Bury St Edmunds on 16 January 2023, held that Miss J Read's claims for unlawful deductions from wages and holiday pay were well founded and succeeded against Maxcap Wealth Limited.
The judgment records that the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total gross sum of £6,575.63. That figure was made up of £76.93 for holiday pay, £1,730.70 for unpaid wages between 1 January 2022 and 14 February 2022, and £4,768.00 in respect of unpaid commission.
No other claims, legal tests, or reasons are set out in the written record beyond the oral judgment noted by the tribunal. The decision notice states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim for unlawful deductions from wages was well founded. The written judgment records awards of £1,730.70 for unpaid wages between 1 January 2022 and 14 February 2022 and £4,768.00 for unpaid commission. | Upheld | — | £6,499 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the holiday pay claim was well founded and awarded £76.93. | Upheld | — | £77 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,576
- 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.