Case 2300142/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Abbi Diamond v The Foster Partnership Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300142/2020
- Decision date
- 22 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Abbi Diamond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was entered under Rule 21 because the Respondent had not presented a response within the stipulated time, and judgment was given in default.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, that the Respondent failed to comply with collective redundancy procedures, that unauthorised deductions had been made from wages, and that unpaid holiday had accrued at the effective date of termination. The tribunal ordered separate sums for each head of award, with a total award of £7,858.30.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Judgment in default states the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,251 |
| Other | Protective award for failure to comply with collective redundancy procedures; classified as other because the taxonomy has no specific collective consultation/protective award category. | Upheld | — | £5,198 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment states the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £785 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment states the Claimant was entitled to unpaid holiday accrued at the effective date of termination. | Upheld | — | £625 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,858
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21
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.