Case 1304773/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Emily Parker Respondents (1) Cycle-R (2) Mandy Taylor (Trustee) (3) Stuart Russell Taylor (Trustee) - (wrongly named as Stuart Russell) (4) Richard Lawrence (Trustee) v Stuart Russell Taylor — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304773/2021
- Decision date
- 7 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Algazy KC
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Emily Parker Respondents (1) Cycle-R (2) Mandy Taylor (Trustee) (3) Stuart Russell Taylor (Trustee) - (wrongly named as Stuart Russell) (4) Richard Lawrence (Trustee)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Birmingham via CVP on 7 December 2023, Employment Judge J Algazy KC entered judgment by consent. The second, third and fourth respondents were dismissed from the claim. The orders were made against Cycle-R. The sums ordered were gross, and the judgment recorded that the claimant was responsible for any income tax and National Insurance contributions.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £869.40, together with £30 for confirming details of the MAT1 form and £38 for direct debit and administration fees under section 24(2) of the ERA 1996, making £937.40 on that head. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,119.00, and that holiday entitlement had not been paid, awarding £142.83. The total payable was £2,199.23.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Includes £869.40 plus £30 and £38 awarded pursuant to section 24(2) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £937 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay damages. | Upheld | — | £1,119 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £143 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,199
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.24(2) ERA 1996
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.