Case 1404103/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Beaumont v Christopher Timms and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1404103/2022
- Decision date
- 3 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss S Beaumont
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 7 December 2022. The respondents did not present a valid response in time, or at all, and the Employment Judge made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal rejected the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have two years' service and so could not claim unfair dismissal. No other finding was recorded on that head of claim.
On the wages claim, the tribunal found that the respondents had not paid the claimant promised salary and a promised bonus. It held that this amounted to unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £8,055 gross.
The tribunal also found that the respondents had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,065 gross. The total award was £9,120 gross, and the judgment stated that the claimant is responsible for any tax due once the payments are received from the respondents.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' service and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondents had not paid promised salary and a promised bonus, amounting to unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £8,055 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondents had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,065 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,120
- 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.