Case 1403325/2023 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v Sol Attendance Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1403325/2023
- Decision date
- 12 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Bristol before Employment Judge Cadney sitting alone, recorded that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend.
The judgment states that the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, notice pay, and accrued but unpaid holiday pay were well founded and upheld. The respondent was ordered to pay awards for each upheld head of claim.
For unfair dismissal, the Tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,713 and a compensatory award of £4,591, making £6,304 for that claim. It also awarded £3,042 for unlawful deduction from wages for 18 December 2022 to 30 January 2023, £1,521 for notice pay, and £2,833 for unpaid holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and upheld, with a basic award of £1,713 and compensatory award of £4,591, total £6,304. | Upheld | — | £6,304 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the unlawful deduction from wages claim was well founded and upheld for the period 18/12/22 to 30/1/2023. | Upheld | — | £3,042 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this claim as notice pay and states it was well founded and upheld. | Upheld | — | £1,521 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as accrued but unpaid holiday pay and states it was well founded and upheld. | Upheld | — | £2,833 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,700
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,713
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,591
- 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.