Case 1305577/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Farrier v CS Bookkeeping Services (Midlands) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305577/2023
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Farrier
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment issued under Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, made because the respondent did not present a Response within the relevant time limit. The tribunal accordingly determined the claims without a contested hearing.
Employment Judge Edmonds found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,440.00 gross. The judge also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £970.00, and that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £650.00.
The judgment records that the sums above are gross amounts and that the claimant is responsible for any income tax and National Insurance contributions due on them. The judgment does not set out detailed factual findings, legal reasoning, or named legal tests, as is typical of a Rule 21 default judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum ordered to be paid to the claimant for unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,440 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £970 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment; claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy. | Upheld | — | £650 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,060
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Schedule 1, Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.