Case 1808904/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Gibson and Miss Sills: in person Other Claimants: no attendance or v Mr Longley, owner — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808904/2023
- Decision date
- 24 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Gibson and Miss Sills: in person Other Claimants: no attendance or
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal upheld the unauthorised deduction from wages claims brought by Miss Gibson and Miss Sills. It ordered the respondent to pay each of them £920.32 in respect of those deductions.
The remaining claims were dismissed under Rule 47 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure because the claimants failed to attend the hearing. The employer's contract claim, claim no. 1801777/2024, was also dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the unauthorised deduction from wages claims brought by Miss Gibson and Miss Sills succeed and that each is awarded this amount. | Upheld | — | £920 |
| Other | The judgment states that the remaining claims are dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimants failed to attend the hearing, but it does not identify those remaining claim types in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes the employer's contract claim no. 1801777/2024 as dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,841
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure
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.