Case 1301241/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Diane Dickenson v Brushstrokes Road Sweepers Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301241/2022
- Decision date
- 24 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JUDGMENT Employment
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Diane Dickenson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment against Brushstrokes Road Sweepers Ltd, which had not presented a response in time. On the information before the Employment Judge, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been paid wages due for the period 22 November to 17 December 2021, and it upheld the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages. The tribunal ordered payment of £2,346.95 gross, calculated by reference to 74.5 hours at £13.50 per hour less wages already paid of £2,658.80.
The tribunal also found that holiday pay had not been paid in accordance with the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of £411.75 gross. It further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract and awarded one week's pay in lieu of notice in the sum of £540 gross.
The tribunal made no award for emotional and financial hardship because the claimant had not provided evidence of financial loss caused by the failure to pay. The hearing listed for 6 July 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded because the respondent failed to pay wages due for 22 November to 17 December 2021; the award was calculated as gross wages owed for 74.5 hours less wages already paid. | Upheld | — | £2,347 |
| Holiday pay | Succeeded because holiday pay had not been paid in accordance with the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £412 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and awarded one week's pay in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £540 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,299
- 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.