Case 1600349/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Sharp v OC Cake Company Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600349/2023
- Decision date
- 24 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Sharp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunals on 13 February 2023, and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and the hearing listed for 25 May 2023 was cancelled.
On the papers, the tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and awarded £300.04 gross. It also held that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £243.60, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £297.76.
The judgment records a total of £840.40, then deducts £157.43 said to have been paid by the respondent on 4 November 2022, leaving £682.97 payable. The arithmetic in the judgment does not fully reconcile with the itemised figures, but the amounts have been recorded as stated in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £300 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £244 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records a combined total of £840.40 before deducting £157.43 previously paid by the respondent on 4 November 2022; the itemised figures in paragraphs 2-4 do not fully reconcile with that total, so the amounts are preserved as stated. | Upheld | — | £298 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £683
- 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.