Case 1400062/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C A Rush v Q S Powder Coaters Ltd DEFAULT — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400062/2025
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C A Rush
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a default judgment issued under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time to the claim, which had been presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 8 January 2025. The Employment Judge determined that a decision could properly be made on the claim on the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages (£650.00 gross), that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice (damages of £7,150.00), that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £10,725.00, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement (£557.40). The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £19,585.00 in total.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; respondent ordered to pay £650.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £650 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £7,150.00 awarded. | Upheld | — | £7,150 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy; entitled to redundancy payment of £10,725.00. | Upheld | — | £10,725 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay claimant's holiday entitlement; ordered to pay £557.40. Layer 1 listed this under Working Time Regulations; mapped here as holiday_pay as that is the specific subject matter. | Upheld | — | £557 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,585
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.