Case 1303260/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Barber v Midsummer Garden Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1303260/2024
- Decision date
- 18 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Barber
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands West Employment Tribunals on 14 March 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Broughton determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. That complaint was held to be well founded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £416.80 gross.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £706.96 gross in respect of that claim.
The total sum payable was £1,123.76 gross. The judgment records that the sum is gross and that the respondent is responsible for deductions of any income tax and National Insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages under rule 21 and ordered payment of £416.80 gross. | Upheld | — | £417 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £706.96 gross. | Upheld | — | £707 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,124
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.