Case 1800721/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Crapper v The Ultimate Battery Company Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800721/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Crapper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 25 January 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, had dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, and had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant gross amounts of £552.00 for the unauthorised deductions, £460.00 for breach of contract (notice), and £138.00 for unpaid holiday entitlement. The judgment records that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance payable on those sums, and that the hearing listed on 27 June 2024 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 determination after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Gross amount. | Upheld | — | £552 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. Gross amount. | Upheld | — | £460 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement. Gross amount. Classified as holiday_pay rather than working_time as the award concerns unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £138 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,150
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.