Case 1303121/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Rodgers v Brittania Services Group — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303121/2022
- Decision date
- 24 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bennett Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Rodgers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Birmingham on 24 January 2023, before Employment Judge Bennett, the Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr Roberts, solicitor. The judgment records three claims: unpaid holiday allowance, unauthorised deductions from wages said to be Direct Earnings Attachment deductions, and a failure to provide itemised pay statements under section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The unpaid holiday allowance claim was withdrawn by the Claimant during the hearing and was dismissed on that basis. The remaining claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and for failure to provide itemised pay statements both failed and were dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award or any separate remedy for any claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday allowance was withdrawn by the Claimant during the hearing and was dismissed on that basis. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerned unauthorised deductions from wages, described as Direct Earnings Attachment deductions. It failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide itemised pay statements under section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.