Case 3312101/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Jadwiga Mensch v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312101/2022
- Decision date
- 25 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Jadwiga Mensch
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment heard by Employment Judge Ord sitting alone at Huntingdon on 25 July 2023. The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal also corrected the respondent's name to Ashley Hubbard trading as The London Curtain Company.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It held that £7,421.46 had been deducted for PAYE tax and National Insurance but not remitted to HMRC. Because no payslips had been provided, the claimant could not identify the exact sums attributable to tax and National Insurance separately.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £3,500 damages. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,380. The total monetary award was therefore £13,301.46.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages because PAYE tax and National Insurance were deducted from the claimant's wages but not remitted to HMRC. The absence of payslips meant the precise tax and NI amounts could not be separated. | Upheld | — | £7,421 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,500. | Upheld | — | £3,500 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,380. | Upheld | — | £2,380 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,301
- 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.