Case 1403074/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Walters v De la Haye Restaurants — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403074/2020
- Decision date
- 6 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Walters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Livesey found that De la Haye Restaurants Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mrs S Walters' wages, had dismissed her in breach of contract in respect of notice, and had failed to pay her holiday entitlement. The tribunal ordered payment of £504.00, £360.00, and £50.40 respectively.
The tribunal also found that Mrs Walters was entitled to a protective award because the respondent had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The award was assessed by reference to 90 days' wages for the protected period beginning on 31 March 2020, and was quantified at £4,628.57.
The total sums ordered by the judgment were £5,542.97.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the gross sum of £504.00. | Upheld | — | £504 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages equivalent to one week's wages. | Upheld | — | £360 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £50.40. | Upheld | — | £50 |
| Trade union | The tribunal held the claimant was entitled to a protective award because the respondent failed to comply with s.188 TULRCA 1992. The award was for the equivalent of 90 days' wages for the protected period beginning on 31 March 2020. | Upheld | — | £4,629 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,543
- 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.