Case 1400008/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Peters v Acacia Training and Development Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400008/2024
- Decision date
- 26 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Peters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the South West Regional Employment Tribunals on 2 January 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Roper made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment is a short default judgment and records the monetary orders made without further findings of fact.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,800 gross for unauthorised deductions from wages, £2,200 in damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice, £541.80 for unpaid expenses, and £759 for unpaid holiday entitlement. The total payable was £6,300.80. The accompanying notice stated that interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 would run from 27 October 2024 at 8% per annum if the award remained unpaid after 14 days, but no interest sum was quantified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages; £2,800 gross awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,800 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; £2,200 damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,200 |
| Other | Award for unpaid expenses; the judgment does not assign a more specific legal label. | Upheld | — | £542 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; £759 awarded. | Upheld | — | £759 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,301
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.