Case 1400959/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Smart v MBT Manufacturing Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400959/2023
- Decision date
- 9 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Smart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 26 February 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the unauthorised deductions claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mrs S Smart's wages and ordered payment of £939.38.
On the breach of contract claim, the tribunal found that Mrs S Smart was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £665.98.
On the redundancy claim, the tribunal found that Mrs S Smart was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £1,127.25. The total sum ordered was £2,732.61.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £939.38. | Upheld | — | £939 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £665.98. | Upheld | — | £666 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £1,127.25. | Upheld | — | £1,127 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,733
- 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.