Case 1600575/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A James v The Naked Vegan Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600575/2023
- Decision date
- 13 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A James
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. The judgment awarded a gross sum of £2,437.50 for those findings, but it did not break that amount down between the two claims.
The tribunal also found that the claimant’s holiday entitlement had not been paid and awarded £116.07. It deducted £1,625 already paid by the respondent and recorded the balance owed as £928.57. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax and employee national insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found unauthorised deductions from wages, but the £2,437.50 gross sum in paragraph 2 was not apportioned between this claim and the notice-breach finding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, but the £2,437.50 gross sum in paragraph 2 was not apportioned between this claim and the unauthorised-deduction finding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £116 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £929
- 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.