Case 6022264/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Maria Da Silva v CloudSource Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022264/2024
- Decision date
- 17 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Sarkis REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Maria Da Silva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningHeard at London Central by CVP on 3 March 2025 before Employment Judge L Sarkis, the case concerned deductions from the claimant's final payment after she resigned on 14 August 2024. She was employed as a junior project manager on gross monthly pay of £4,166.67, and on 30 September 2024 the respondent made a net final payment of £4,913.27, including pay in lieu of the remainder of her notice period.
The Tribunal dismissed the holiday pay complaint for 3 to 6 September 2024 because the claimant was in France, had not sought permission to work from abroad, and the respondent's hybrid working policy did not permit work from outside the UK. It upheld the complaint for 9 to 20 September 2024 because the respondent required annual leave without giving the notice required by reg. 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Tribunal awarded £1,923 for 10 days' holiday at £192.30 per day.
On the equipment deduction issue, the Tribunal accepted that the respondent could deduct only in relation to items actually provided and not returned. It rejected the respondent's case about the Kensington dock and headset, and made an award of £256.86 for the unlawful deduction. The total gross sum ordered was £2,179.86, and the claimant was responsible for tax and National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint for 3 to 6 September 2024 dismissed: the claimant was in France, had not asked to work from abroad, and knew the respondent's policy did not permit working outside the UK. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint for 9 to 20 September 2024 succeeded because the respondent gave no notice under reg. 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The reasons refer at one point to 8.5 days and elsewhere to 10 days; the formal award was £1,923 for 10 days at £192.30 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,923 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint about deductions for the access pass and portable monitor dismissed: the tribunal held the respondent was entitled to deduct for items in the claimant's possession that she had not returned. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint about deductions for the Kensington dock and headset succeeded. The tribunal found the dock had not been issued and the headset had been returned; the written reasons contain an internal arithmetic inconsistency, but the formal award was £256.86. | Upheld | — | £257 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,180
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.14 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.15 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.