Case 1604170/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Y Powell v Flintshire Transport Services — 2025
- Case reference
- 1604170/2024
- Decision date
- 10 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jenkins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Y Powell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Wales Employment Tribunal on 21 September 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Jenkins determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £638.61 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding damages of £6,871.60.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,021.78 gross. The judgment states that the respondent must pay £8,537.99 in total and that the claimant is responsible for any tax and employee national insurance contributions due; the extracted text does not explain the £6.00 difference between the itemised sums and the stated total.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £638.61 gross. | Upheld | — | £639 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £6,871.60. | Upheld | — | £6,872 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to the claimant’s holiday entitlement; the extracted text does not cite the Working Time Regulations expressly. | Upheld | — | £1,022 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,538
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.