Case 3311530/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v JIG Holdings (Norfolk) Ltd (a Dissolved Company) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311530/2022
- Decision date
- 15 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the respondent, JIG Holdings (Norfolk) Limited (a dissolved company), did not attend and no response was entered. The case was heard at Norwich before Employment Judge Postle on 15 March 2023. The tribunal therefore determined the claim on the material before it and recorded awards in the judgment.
The tribunal found that the respondents had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £672.45 net. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £313.38. In addition, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £156.69.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; the tribunal ordered payment of the net sum of £672.45 for unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £672 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £313.38. | Upheld | — | £313 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £156.69. | Upheld | — | £157 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,143
- 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.