Case 1802398/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Franklin v Shuropody Retail Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802398/2022
- Decision date
- 19 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Franklin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 16 May 2022 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal found that Shuropody Retail Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and had failed to pay her holiday entitlement.
The tribunal also held that Ms M Franklin's unfair dismissal claim succeeded and was upheld. For that claim, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,025.00, calculated on the basis stated in the judgment: four years' employment, the claimant being over 41, and four times one and a half weeks' pay at £337.50. The tribunal stated that it had not made a compensatory award as part of the Rule 21 judgment.
The judgment notes that if Ms Franklin wished to pursue a compensatory award for unfair dismissal, that issue would need to be determined at a hearing of the claim. The sums ordered in the judgment were £1,970.96 for unlawful deductions from wages, £838.93 for holiday entitlement, and £2,025.00 as the unfair dismissal basic award.
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 the gross sum of £1,970.96. | Upheld | — | £1,971 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £838.93. | Upheld | — | £839 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal made a basic award of £2,025.00 only and did not make a compensatory award in this Rule 21 judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,025 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,835
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,025
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.