Case 1403585/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Fiona Dymond v Rosie Lee Bakery Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403585/2020
- Decision date
- 17 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Fiona Dymond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Rayner found that Rosie Lee Bakery Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Fiona Dymond's wages and ordered payment of £1,032.93 net in respect of unpaid wages. The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £500.00, described as one week's pay.
The judgment further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £75.00. It also recorded a failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment contrary to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 and awarded compensation of £1,000.00, described as two weeks' pay.
The total sum payable to the claimant was stated to be £2,607.93. The judgment does not set out any additional reasoning beyond the listed findings and the awards made under Rule 21.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages; the judgment awards the net sum of £1,032.93 in respect of unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £1,033 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissal in breach of contract as to notice; damages were awarded at one week's pay. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; the judgment awards £75.00. | Upheld | — | £75 |
| Other | Failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment contrary to section 38 Employment Act 2002; compensation was awarded at two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,608
- 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.