Case 1305254/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Ryan v House for Hope (Coventry) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305254/2021
- Decision date
- 23 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Ryan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 24 December 2021. The judgment records that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and that Employment Judge Flood could properly determine the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £495 gross. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £424.17 gross.
The judgment records a total award of £919.17 gross. No separate award breakdown is given beyond the two sums stated for the two claims, and no other remedy components are mentioned.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The judgment awards the claimant the gross sum of £495. | Upheld | — | £495 |
| Holiday pay | Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The judgment awards the claimant £424.17 gross for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £424 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £919
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.