Case 2300057/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Harwood v Elliott House Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300057/2022
- Decision date
- 11 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Harwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment for Ms S Harwood under Rule 21 after Elliott House Limited failed to enter a response. On that basis, the tribunal accepted the claims and recorded that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages, ordering payment of £255.27 net.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,207.60. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £267.30.
The judgment records no separate basic award, compensatory award, or interest. The total monetary award on the face of the judgment is £3,730.17.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to enter a response; ordered to pay the net sum of £255.27. | Upheld | — | £255 |
| Redundancy | Judgment entered under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to enter a response; the claimant was found to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded £3,207.60. | Upheld | — | £3,208 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment entered under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to enter a response; ordered to pay £267.30 for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £267 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,730
- 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.