Case 1806298/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Head v Mach Recruitment Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806298/2020
- Decision date
- 11 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Head
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found that Mach Recruitment Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Miss Head's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £717.00.
The tribunal also found that Miss Head had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £340.00 in damages. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay her holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £807.50.
The judgment did not decide the remaining unfair dismissal claim for asserting rights to wages. That claim was to be listed for a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Rule 21 judgment found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum. | Upheld | — | £717 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages. | Upheld | — | £340 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment found failure to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum. | Upheld | — | £808 |
| Unfair dismissal | The remaining claim of unfair dismissal for asserting rights to wages was not decided in this judgment and was to be listed for a hearing. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,865
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, 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.