Case 6020351/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Maisie Wright v The Traffic Management Company and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020351/2024
- Decision date
- 30 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Maisie Wright
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge R S Drake on 30 May 2025, the first named respondent (The Traffic Management Company) was dismissed from the proceedings, the parties having accepted that the correctly cited respondent was the second named respondent (TCMC Crowded Space Ltd). The judge granted leave to R2 to validate the ET3 it had attempted to file by email on 28 and 29 May 2025, accepting that R2 had made a genuine attempt to file in time and had been unaware of the most recent Presidential Practice Direction requiring such filings to be sent to the Tribunal's central office.
The parties were given time for private discussions and reached settlement terms on the basis that R2 did not admit liability. Judgment was entered by consent: R2 was to pay the claimant £219.70 by 5pm on 2 June 2025 in full and final settlement of all her claims, in addition to her acknowledgement of receipt of £181.30 already paid on 29 May 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment by consent: R2 to pay £219.70 in full and final settlement, in addition to £181.30 already paid on 29 May 2025 (total £401). R1 dismissed from proceedings. Settlement made on basis of R2 not admitting liability. | Settled | — | £401 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £401
- 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.