Case 3311531/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v JIG Holdings (Norfolk) Ltd (a Dissolved Company) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311531/2022
- Decision date
- 14 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 heard at Norwich on 14 March 2023 before Employment Judge Postle. The respondent did not attend and no response was entered. On that basis, the tribunal determined the claim on the materials before it.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £1,284.90. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £296.51.
The tribunal further held that the claimant did not qualify for a redundancy payment. The judgment does not record any separate award for redundancy or any split of the monetary sums beyond the two amounts ordered on the wage deduction and notice claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondents had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £1,284.90. | Upheld | — | £1,285 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £296.51. | Upheld | — | £297 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant did not qualify for a redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,581
- 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.