Case 2207677/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claire Cruickshank v Trinity Brands UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207677/2021
- Decision date
- 5 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Brady Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claire Cruickshank
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Claire Cruickshank, was dismissed on 20 August 2021. The respondent did not attend the hearing and did not respond to the ET1. The tribunal recorded that the claimant succeeded on her claims for breach of contract, holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998, statutory redundancy pay, and unauthorised deduction from wages.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent failed to give notice of termination or payment in lieu of notice after the claimant was dismissed on 20 August 2021. | Upheld | — | £2,667 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found a breach of Regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of 18 days' accrued but untaken holiday. | Upheld | — | £2,215 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay statutory redundancy pay. | Upheld | — | £1,088 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,723 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,693
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.