Case 1401548/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Milsom v Regal Homemaker Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401548/2023
- Decision date
- 20 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Milsom
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 20 April 2023. The Respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Midgley determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the papers, the tribunal found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mrs A Milsom's wages and ordered payment of £3,704.18 gross. It also found that she had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding damages of £5,128.80.
The tribunal further found that Mrs A Milsom was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £11,112.40. The total amount payable was £19,945.38.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £3,704 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £5,129 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £11,112 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,945
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.