Case 1803051/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Crowther v Cavendish Property Investments Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803051/2023
- Decision date
- 17 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Crowther
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by video on 15 August 2023 before Employment Judge T Knowles as a Rule 21 judgment. The respondent did not appear. The tribunal found that Cavendish Property Investments Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay the gross sum of £8,480.76.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £16,961.28. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £244.60.
The separate breach of contract claim failed. The tribunal found that the claimant had received and worked her notice period, so there was no breach in that respect. The judgment said the issue was non-payment, and that matter was covered by the wages award already made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £8,481 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant had received and worked her notice period, so the claim failed. The non-payment issue was dealt with in the wages award. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £16,961 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £245 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,687
- across all upheld claims
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.