Case 3311763/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For v Ms Evans-Jarvis, Solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311763/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Douse, sitting alone at Watford on 19 and 20 February 2024, dismissed the Claimant’s claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and for breach of contract in relation to payment of expenses. The judgment records that there were no unauthorised deductions from wages and no breach of contract in relation to expenses.
The tribunal did find that the Respondent breached the Claimant’s contract by refusing to allow her to work out one month’s paid notice and/or failing to pay one month’s pay in lieu of notice. It ordered payment of £2,583.33 gross in lieu of notice, stated that no additional damages were awarded, and said interest would accrue at a daily rate of 8% from the date of judgment unless payment was made within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted text says there were no unauthorised deductions from wages, but the statutory citation is incomplete in the extraction ('contrary to s.;'). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This claim related to payment of expenses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This claim related to one month’s paid notice and/or payment in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £2,583 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,583
- 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.