Case 3315317/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Illescas v Dyer-Williams Consulting Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3315317/2022
- Decision date
- 6 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Partington Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Illescas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at Watford on 26 September 2023 by Employment Judge Partington Representation, with the Claimant appearing in person and the Respondent not attending. The tribunal recorded that the Claimant’s claims for unlawful deductions from wages, holiday pay and breach of contract were well founded.
The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £1,961.53 for unpaid salary, £3,675 for unpaid commission, £346.15 for unpaid holiday, and £237.60 for unpaid employer pension contributions. The judgment states that these sums are payable less applicable deductions for tax and national insurance for which the Respondent must account to HM Revenue and Customs.
No separate legal test is stated in the written judgment, and no discrimination or dismissal claim was recorded. The total of the sums awarded is £6,220.28.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim was well founded and ordered payment of £1,961.53 for unpaid salary and £3,675 for unpaid commission, before applicable tax and national insurance deductions. | Upheld | — | £5,637 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the holiday pay claim was well founded and ordered payment of £346.15 for unpaid holiday. | Upheld | — | £346 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the breach of contract claim was well founded and ordered payment of £237.60 for unpaid employer pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £238 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,220
- 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.