Case 1307906/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Heenan v Mainline security limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1307906/2023
- Decision date
- 4 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meichen Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Heenan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 22 November 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
On the evidence before the tribunal, the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, and the claimant's complaint was well founded. The tribunal also found that there had been unauthorised pension deductions from the claimant's wages which had not been paid to the pension administrator. Separate awards were made for those heads of claim: £550.00 gross and £131.74 gross.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded damages of £519.23 gross for that claim. The complaint for expenses was refused because it had not been pleaded, no application to amend the claim had been made, and the bank statement provided was said to be insufficient to show that the total amount claimed related to registration forms.
The total payable was £1,200.97 gross. The judgment states that the sum payable is gross and that the respondent is responsible for any deductions of income tax and National Insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £550.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £550 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised pension deductions from the claimant's wages that had not been paid to the pension administrator and ordered payment of £131.74 gross. | Upheld | — | £132 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £519.23 gross damages. | Upheld | — | £519 |
| Other | The complaint for expenses was not pleaded, no application to amend was made, and the bank statement was said to be insufficient to show that the amount claimed was for registration forms; the complaint was refused. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,201
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.