Case 1601310/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Liffen v Evolve Motor Company Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601310/2024
- Decision date
- 22 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Liffen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunals on 21 May 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge S Jenkins determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,076.92 gross for the unauthorised deductions from wages and £972.88 for financial loss arising from those deductions. It also ordered payment of £1,045.38 for unpaid holiday entitlement. The total amount payable was £4,095.18, and the judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax and employee national insurance contributions.
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 £2,076.92 gross, together with £972.88 for financial loss arising from those deductions. | Upheld | — | £3,050 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £1,045.38. | Upheld | — | £1,045 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,095
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.