Case 1401129/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Van Zyl v Blackwater Equestrian Centre Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401129/2024
- Decision date
- 13 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Van Zyl
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing by video in Southampton on 13 December 2024, before Employment Judge Dawson, the respondent's name was amended by consent to Blackwater Equestrian Centre Limited. The tribunal then found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £349.60.
The written record also states that the other claims were dismissed. No separate written reasons were provided in the judgment record because reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and the notes state that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days. The judgment therefore records the outcome and remedy but does not set out further findings on the dismissed claim(s).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £349.60. | Upheld | — | £350 |
| Other | The written judgment does not identify the dismissed claim(s) individually; it states only that 'the other claims are dismissed'. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £350
- 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.