Case 1405003/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Eggelton v Bau UK Ltd and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405003/2023
- Decision date
- 17 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss H Eggelton
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 22 August 2023. The Respondents failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Dawson determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the tribunal could properly determine the claim, or part of it, on that basis.
Against the first respondent, BAU UK Ltd, the tribunal found that there had been unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered BAU UK Ltd to pay £2,603.93 gross in respect of that claim. The tribunal also found that BAU UK Ltd had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,041.60 for that element.
The total amount payable by BAU UK Ltd was £3,645.53. The claim against the second respondent, Green Home Gurus Limited, was dismissed. The hearing listed for 26 January 2024 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that BAU UK Ltd made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay £2,603.93 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,604 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that BAU UK Ltd failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and must pay £1,041.60. | Upheld | — | £1,042 |
| Other | The judgment says the claim against the Second Respondent, Green Home Gurus Limited, is dismissed. No separate legal category is identified in the text for this dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,646
- 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.