Case 1405743/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Tibbs v Acacia Training and Development Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405743/2023
- Decision date
- 26 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Tibbs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThese were Rule 21 default judgments in the joined cases because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £3,417.75 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £5,169.72, and that she had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £12,924.30.
The tribunal further found that holiday entitlement had not been paid and awarded £775.45, and that itemised pay statements had not been provided, with a further award of £1,723.24. The total awarded was £24,010.46. The judgment also included a notice explaining when interest would accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,418 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £5,170 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. | Upheld | — | £12,924 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £775 |
| Other | Failure to provide itemised pay statements. | Upheld | — | £1,723 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £24,010
- 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.