Case 3334773/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3334773/2018
- Decision date
- 24 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heal Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by CVP at Watford on 7 and 24 August 2020 before Employment Judge Heal. The judgment recorded three complaints by Miss A. Crow against ISS Damage Control Ltd. The first complaint, breach of contract relating to unpaid expenses, was stayed for 28 days so that the parties could put the terms of settlement into effect.
The second complaint, described as breach of contract or unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of pay during the claimant's notice period, was dismissed. The third complaint, concerning unpaid sick pay for the last month of employment, was said to be not well founded and was also dismissed. The judgment did not record any monetary award.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The complaint of breach of contract relating to unpaid expenses was stayed for 28 days to allow the parties to put the terms of settlement into effect. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described this as a complaint of breach of contract or unauthorised deductions from wages in relation to pay during the claimant's notice period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal said the complaint of unpaid sick pay relating to the last month of employment was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.