Case 3311197/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms O Gibson v Blueprint Capital Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311197/2023
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Approved
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms O Gibson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages because April and May 2023 salary had not been paid. It ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £7,548.
It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. The tribunal awarded damages of £1,399.85, stated to represent two weeks' notice.
The tribunal rejected any entitlement to a redundancy payment. It found that the claimant had been employed from 1 September 2021 to 31 May 2023, which was less than two years, so the statutory redundancy threshold was not met. The bottom-line monetary award on the judgment was £8,947.85.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that April and May 2023 salary was not paid and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £7,548. | Upheld | — | £7,548 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,399.85, described as two weeks' notice. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was employed from 1 September 2021 to 31 May 2023, which was less than two years, and held there was no entitlement to a redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,948
- 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.