Case 1402957/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Harriet Soole v AND NLB Group south west Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402957/2019
- Decision date
- 2 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Harriet Soole
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was dealt with under Rule 21 because the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented. In that position, the tribunal entered judgment on the pleaded claims without a merits hearing on the respondent's case.
The tribunal held that Miss Harriet Soole's claim for breach of contract succeeded, her claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded, and her claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay succeeded. The judgment records those outcomes only and does not set out further findings of fact or legal reasoning in the extracted text.
No monetary award was fixed in this judgment. The tribunal said that the appropriate remedy would be determined at a hearing to be listed separately, and that notice would be sent to the parties in due course.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Judgment under Rule 21; the tribunal stated that the claim for breach of contract succeeds. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment under Rule 21; the tribunal stated that the claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeds. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Judgment under Rule 21; the tribunal stated that the claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay succeeds. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.