Case 1400638/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Buckingham Pearce v Heartlands Trust (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400638/2024
- Decision date
- 6 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Buckingham Pearce
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South West Region Employment Tribunal on 18 March 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Roper determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages of £104.00 gross, that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice with damages of £3,281.01, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement of £898.21.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £4,194.22 in total. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Roper on 6 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £3,281.01 awarded. | Upheld | — | £3,281 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; £898.21 awarded. | Upheld | — | £898 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages; awarded £104.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £104 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,194
- 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.