Case 6015112/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms KC Bowley v Tri Ri Capital Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015112/2024
- Decision date
- 10 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms KC Bowley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place on 10 March 2025 at East London Hearing Centre via CVP before Regional Employment Judge Burgher. The respondent did not attend or respond. The claimant attended, and the tribunal recorded that she had not been told about the time change from 12pm to 2pm. Having considered the papers, the tribunal issued judgment under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract. It ordered £13,332 in respect of wages for June and July 2024, calculated as two payments of £6,666, and £4,166 in respect of accrued bonus. The judgment does not set out a contested liability analysis because it was determined on the papers in the respondent's absence.
The tribunal stated that damages were calculated on a net basis, but that the gross figure was used in the calculation because the claimant would be liable for tax on the elements relating to pay. The total sum ordered was £17,498.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded in respect of wages for June and July 2024 (2 x £6,666). | Upheld | — | £13,332 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded in respect of accrued bonus. | Upheld | — | £4,166 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,498
- 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.