Case 1310228/2020 · Employment Tribunal
1. Miss P Kempton 2. Miss E Lowe v Bakeevencakery Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1310228/2020
- Decision date
- 29 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Connolly
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Miss P Kempton 2. Miss E Lowe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Birmingham by CVP on 29 June 2021 before Employment Judge Connolly sitting alone. By consent, the respondent's name was changed to Bakeevencakery Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Miss P Kempton's wages and from Miss E Lowe's wages.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Miss Kempton £717.09 and Miss Lowe £351.78 in respect of those deductions. The judgment states that those sums were to be paid gross, with the claimants responsible for any income tax and National Insurance contributions.
In addition, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay each claimant £104.50 for preparation time wasted by the postponement of the hearing on 25 May 2021. No separate reasons were provided because reasons were given orally and no written reasons were requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim brought by Miss P Kempton. The tribunal also ordered £104.50 for preparation time wasted by the postponement of the hearing on 25 May 2021. | Upheld | — | £717 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim brought by Miss E Lowe. The tribunal also ordered £104.50 for preparation time wasted by the postponement of the hearing on 25 May 2021. | Upheld | — | £352 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,278
- across all upheld claims
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.