Case 1402319/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Davis v Bark & Birch Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402319/2021
- Decision date
- 5 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Davis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 9 September 2022, the Tribunal gave Bark & Birch Ltd an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why its response should not be struck out, because it had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 24 March 2022 and had not actively pursued the case. The respondent did not make representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and the response was therefore struck out.
After striking out the response, the Employment Judge decided that the claim could properly be determined on the papers. The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered Bark & Birch Ltd to pay Miss C Davis £1,153.17 gross.
The judgment records no separate discrimination, dismissal, or contractual findings beyond the unlawful deductions claim, and no additional remedy elements such as interest or injury to feelings were addressed in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent's response was struck out after it failed to comply with the Tribunal's order dated 24 March 2022 and did not make sufficient representations after the letter dated 9 September 2022. The Employment Judge then determined that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,153.17 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,153 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,153
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,153
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.