Case 1400671/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Henley v Philip Byatt t/a Aquarius Canvas — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400671/2023
- Decision date
- 27 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Henley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 9 February 2023. The respondent, Philip Byatt t/a Aquarius Canvas, failed to present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Dawson determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The note to the judgment states that reasons were not given under rule 62 because the matters set out in the claim form were not disputed.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract in respect of notice, redundancy pay, and holiday pay. The judgment records separate monetary awards for each head of claim and states that the respondent must pay the claimant £13,255.02 in total.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment text renders the amount as £42001; line 2 says the deduction amount was 'as per the claim form'. | Upheld | — | £4,200 |
| Breach of contract | Judgment text renders the amount as £33302; note 2 says '9 x £370'. | Upheld | — | £3,330 |
| Redundancy | Judgment text renders the amount as £49953; note 3 says '9 x 1.5 weeks x £370'. | Upheld | — | £4,995 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment text renders the amount as £718.774; interpreted as £718.77. | Upheld | — | £719 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,255
- 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.