Case 1401864/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Hockaday v Lily and Lime LD CIC — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401864/2021
- Decision date
- 25 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Hockaday
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Self heard the case at Southampton on 12-13 April 2022. The Respondent did not attend, although it had been informed of the hearing. The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims, stating that both were not well-founded.
The Tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction of wages claim and ordered the Respondent to pay £313.92. It also found that the Claimant had not been provided with a written contract of employment and awarded £1,116.16 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The total sum payable under the judgment was £1,430.08.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The redundancy payment claim was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found the unlawful deduction of wages claim well-founded and ordered £313.92. | Upheld | — | £314 |
| Other | Award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written contract of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,116 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,430
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.