Case 6020187/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E James v Intesa Communications Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020187/2024
- Decision date
- 5 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge V Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E James
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss E James presented the claim in the Wales Employment Tribunal on 29 November 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge proceeded to make a determination under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that Intesa Communications Limited had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,044.80 gross for that claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered the respondent to pay £429 in damages for the notice breach. The judgment records a total award of £1,473.80 and states that the claimant is responsible for any tax and employee national insurance contributions that may be payable. The hearing listed for 25 February 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,044.80 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,045 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £429. | Upheld | — | £429 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,474
- 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.