Case 1401363/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss I Bundy (2) Miss D Evans v The Muddy Paw Pet Services Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401363/2023
- Decision date
- 10 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Miss I Bundy (2) Miss D Evans
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment. Employment Judge Midgley noted that the respondent had failed to present a valid response, so the tribunal determined the claims on the papers and cancelled the hearing listed for 11 August 2023.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages. It ordered payment of unpaid salary of £1,806.00 gross to Miss I Bundy and £2,166.66 gross to Miss D Evans.
The tribunal also found that both claimants had been dismissed in breach of contract. It awarded Miss Bundy £373.64 for pension contributions deducted from pay but not paid to the pension provider and £771.63 for unpaid employer pension contributions. It awarded Miss Evans £1,069.677 for deducted pension contributions not paid to the pension provider and £714.80 for unpaid employer pension contributions.
Finally, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimants' holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £240.90 to Miss Bundy and £251.17 to Miss Evans. On the figures stated in the judgment, the total payable is £7,394.47.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,973 |
| Breach of contract | The PDF text shows £1,069.677 for the Second Claimant's deducted pension contributions; this appears to be an OCR artefact and has been treated as £1,069.67 in the aggregate total. | Upheld | — | £2,930 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £492 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,394
- 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.