Case 1600996/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Venning-Patience v Sticks Leisure Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600996/2022
- Decision date
- 6 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Venning-Patience
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge said a determination could properly be made on the claim, or part of it, on that basis.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim and found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages, awarding £118.20 gross. It also upheld the breach of contract claim in respect of notice, finding that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract and awarding damages of £1,546.98 gross.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £252.01 gross. The total payable under the judgment was £1,917.19.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £118.20 gross. | Upheld | — | £118 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,546.98 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,547 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £252.01 gross. | Upheld | — | £252 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,917
- 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.