Case 1405391/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D White v Sky Home Living Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405391/2023
- Decision date
- 23 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D White
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after finding that the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. It therefore made a determination on the papers without a defended hearing.
It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and awarded £324.87 gross, which the judgment said included pay, travel time and mileage. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £315.00 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and awarded £202.50. The total amount payable was £842.37.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and said the £324.87 gross award included pay, travel time and mileage. | Upheld | — | £325 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £315.00 damages. | Upheld | — | £315 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and awarded £202.50. | Upheld | — | £203 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £842
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.