Case 1600747/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Psaila v Classic Sportswear Manufacturing Limited - In Liquidation ('The Company') — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600747/2023
- Decision date
- 4 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Psaila
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Jenkins found that Classic Sportswear Manufacturing Limited - In Liquidation had made unauthorised deductions from Miss A Psaila's wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £255.12 gross for the deductions and £419.08 as compensation for financial loss attributable to them.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £206.55 gross in respect of that holiday pay issue.
The judgment records a total award of £880.75. No discrimination, dismissal, or other claims were addressed in the text provided, and no separate legal test was set out beyond the Rule 21 default judgment under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 a gross sum of £255.12 plus £419.08 compensation for financial loss attributable to those deductions. | Upheld | — | £674 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £206.55 gross. | Upheld | — | £207 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £881
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £419
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.