Case 2210609/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Lorna Walker v RHC Europe LLP (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2210609/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lorna Walker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3. Employment Judge Stout therefore considered the ET1 and additional information supplied by the claimant and decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages of £29,149.00. It also found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay notice pay of £27,500.00. The judgment does not set out further factual reasons beyond those findings.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £56,649.00 in total and to account to HMRC for any tax and National Insurance due on that sum. No separate breakdown for basic award, compensatory award, interest, or injury to feelings was provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages in the sum of £29,149.00 and made a rule 21 judgment on that basis. | Upheld | — | £29,149 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay notice pay in the sum of £27,500.00. The judgment does not further label this as wrongful dismissal, so it is classified here as breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £27,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £56,649
- 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.