Case 1600092/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Cleary v Goodhemp Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600092/2023
- Decision date
- 13 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Cleary
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge S Jenkins stated that a determination could properly be made on the claim, or part of it, under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered Goodhemp Ltd to pay £1,274.00 gross. It also upheld the claimant's breach of contract claim in respect of notice, finding that she had been dismissed in breach of contract and awarding £277.27 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,102.50. The total payable was recorded as £2,653.77. The hearing listed for 23 June 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,274.00 gross under rule 21. | Upheld | — | £1,274 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £277.27 damages. | Upheld | — | £277 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £1,102.50. | Upheld | — | £1,103 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,654
- 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.