Case 3310864/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Lamont v Owl Cleaning Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310864/2023
- Decision date
- 19 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Lamont
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant became an employee of the respondent on 2 May 2023 via a TUPE transfer and was dismissed on 12 May 2023. The respondent maintained that it dismissed her for some other substantial reason, namely a genuine belief that she could not prove her identity and right to work. The tribunal found the dismissal to be unfair, and that complaint was well-founded. The complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract for notice pay, and holiday pay were also well-founded. The claim for a redundancy payment was withdrawn at the start of proceedings and dismissed upon withdrawal.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £781.50 and, after reconsideration to correct two errors in the oral judgment (failure to apply the statutory 52-week cap on the compensatory award and failure to deduct the notice pay award to avoid double recovery), a compensatory award of £6,733, producing a total monetary award for unfair dismissal of £7,514.50. The compensatory award included immediate loss of £6,343.18 (48.7 weeks x £130.25), £300 for loss of statutory rights, and future loss of £2,852.48 (21.9 weeks x £130.25), totalling £9,495.66 before deduction of notice pay and application of the statutory cap. The Recoupment Regulations 1996 applied; the prescribed element was £4,758.65 for the period 12/5/23 to 15/5/24.
In addition to the unfair dismissal award, the tribunal ordered payment of £234.45 in unauthorised wage deductions, £521 in notice pay damages, and £263.78 in holiday pay damages. The judgment was a reconsideration on the papers, conducted with no objection from either party, and the judge apologised for the initial errors in the oral remedy judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim for redundancy pay was withdrawn at the start of proceedings; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Agreed figure of £234.45 gross for 11 days' wages owed. Stored as integer GBP. | Upheld | — | £234 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay: 4 weeks x £130.25 = £521 awarded as damages for breach of contract (wrongful dismissal). | Upheld | — | £521 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay awarded as damages for breach of contract: 2.0252 weeks accrued x £130.25 = £263.78. Stored as integer GBP. | Upheld | — | £264 |
| Unfair dismissal | Total monetary award for unfair dismissal (basic award £781.50 + compensatory award £6,733 = £7,514.50) after reconsideration applying the statutory cap of 52 weeks' pay and deducting notice pay to avoid double recovery. Stored as integer GBP. | Upheld | — | £7,515 |
| Working time regulations | Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations but the tribunal addressed the holiday entitlement as breach of contract; no separate WTR finding identified in the available PDF text. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,533
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £782
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,733
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey reduction
- TUPE reg 7(1)
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.