Case 3315283/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Price, Counsel For the First v ProspHER CIC and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3315283/2022
- Decision date
- 19 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Price, Counsel For the First
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Ms Shelley Rudling had been paid below the National Minimum Wage for the period March 2022 to September 2022. It ordered ProspHER CIC and HER Business Revolution Limited to pay unpaid wages of £975.00.
It also found that the Respondents wrongfully dismissed the Claimant and were in breach of contract by failing to pay notice. The Tribunal awarded £1,235.00 in damages for that notice pay claim.
At the end of employment, including the notice period, the Claimant had accrued 31.1 hours of unpaid holiday. The Tribunal ordered payment of £295.45 for holiday pay, making the total award £2,505.45.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal declared that the Claimant had been paid under the National Minimum Wage for the period March 2022 to September 2022 and ordered payment of unpaid wages of £975.00. | Upheld | — | £975 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Tribunal found that the Respondents wrongfully dismissed the Claimant and were in breach of contract by failing to pay notice. Damages of £1,235.00 were ordered. | Upheld | — | £1,235 |
| Holiday pay | At termination, including the notice period, the Claimant had accrued 31.1 hours of unpaid holiday, and the Tribunal ordered payment of £295.45. | Upheld | — | £295 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,505
- 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.