Case 1403564/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Freeman v Stay365 Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403564/2023
- Decision date
- 13 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Freeman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim without a hearing on the merits. The claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 23 May 2023.
On the papers, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered Stay365 Ltd to pay £4,923.04 gross for that claim. The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £615.38 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £492. The judgment records a total sum payable of £6,030.42 and states that the claim succeeds, with remedy otherwise to be determined at a remedy hearing. The hearing listed for 20 September 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £4,923.04 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,923 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £615.38 damages. | Upheld | — | £615 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £492. | Upheld | — | £492 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,030
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.