Case 1401078/2024 · Employment Tribunal
S Glasspool v G & A Investment Projects Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401078/2024
- Decision date
- 9 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Glasspool
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 22 April 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Roper determined that a decision could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in respect of Statutory Maternity Pay, and ordered payment of £557.78 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £500.16.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,057.94 in total.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions in respect of Statutory Maternity Pay; £557.78 gross. | Upheld | — | £558 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,058
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.