Case 1800730/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Z Webster v The Ultimate Battery Company Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800730/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Z Webster
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 in time, and Employment Judge Davies 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 and ordered payment of £946.15 gross. It further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with the respondent ordered to pay £3,416.67 gross, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, with £709.62 gross awarded.
The judgment recorded that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance payable on the sums awarded, and the hearing listed for 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; gross amount awarded. | Upheld | — | £946 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; gross amount awarded. | Upheld | — | £3,417 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement; gross amount awarded. Listing referenced Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £710 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,072
- 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.