Case 1804079/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Gill v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy — 2019
- Case reference
- 1804079/2019
- Decision date
- 4 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Gill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained that the respondent had made a deduction when paying sums from the redundancy payment fund for redundancy pay and/or statutory notice pay. The judgment records possible deductions for tax and for benefits which the claimant said she had not claimed.
The respondent did not attend the hearing but had entered a response. It stated that new rules required a tax deduction from the payments and suggested the claimant should seek reimbursement from HMRC, while also indicating that payment might be made directly by the respondent. The response did not appear to address the benefits point.
The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 16 September 2019 inviting her to consider withdrawing the claim if she had received the payments due, and asked for a reply by 26 September 2019. The claimant did not reply or attend the hearing, and the Tribunal assumed she had received the sums claimed either from the respondent or HMRC. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint concerned alleged deductions from payments made from the redundancy payment fund in respect of redundancy pay and/or statutory notice pay. The judgment dismissed the claim after the claimant did not respond to correspondence or attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.