Case 3311337/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person on 7 October 2024 and represented by her partner, Mr T Collins, on 11 December 2024 For the v Ms N Lakhani, HR Manager — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311337/2023
- Decision date
- 28 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person on 7 October 2024 and represented by her partner, Mr T Collins, on 11 December 2024 For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Jamie Wills, resigned on 22 June 2023 giving eight weeks' notice to 17 August 2023. After exchanges in July 2023 about the grievance outcome and the ending of her employment, the tribunal recorded that the disability discrimination claim had already been withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal at a preliminary hearing on 15 April 2024, leaving the contractual and wages claims for determination.
On the notice-pay dispute, the tribunal found that the respondent had not proved an agreement that the claimant's employment would end on 20 July 2023. It considered the Slack messages of 6, 7 and 11 July 2023, the early morning email of 12 July 2023 asserting that the shortened notice period had been agreed, and the later responses from the claimant. The tribunal held that those materials did not establish a binding agreement to shorten the notice period, and it awarded four weeks' notice pay of £2,071.32 gross.
On the wages claim, the tribunal held that the claimant remained entitled to salary to 20 July 2023 and that no one had told her she would lose pay if she was not required to attend on 8 July 2023. It noted that clause 4 of the contract did not make payment conditional on actual hours worked. On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant had been underpaid in her final salary by £129.40, calculated by reference to entitlement of £1,479.45 for 20 days in July 2023 and payment of £1,350.05.
The reference claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had said it would provide a reference, but held that there was no consideration for any separate binding promise to do so, so the assurance was non-contractual. It therefore dismissed the claim for a week's pay said to have been lost because the reference was not provided. The tribunal's total award was £2,200.72 gross, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claim was originally pleaded but was withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal by Employment Judge M Warren at a preliminary hearing on 15 April 2024. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for four weeks' notice pay. The tribunal found the respondent had not proved an agreement to shorten the claimant's notice to 20 July 2023 and awarded 4 weeks' pay, calculated from the annual salary of £27,000. | Upheld | — | £2,071 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for a shortfall in final salary. The tribunal held the claimant remained entitled to salary to 20 July 2023 and found an underpayment of £129.40 after comparing entitlement of £1,479.45 for 20 days in July with payment of £1,350.05. | Upheld | — | £129 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for a week's pay said to have been lost because the respondent did not provide a reference. The tribunal held there was no consideration for any binding promise to give a reference, so there was no contractual claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,201
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- consideration
- Apportionment Act 1870
- Hartley v King Edward VI College [2017] UKSC 39
- balance of probabilities
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.