Case 2300489/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Bayliss v Artificial Solutions UK Ltd (in Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300489/2021
- Decision date
- 27 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Bayliss
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent failed to enter a response to the claim, and the Tribunal gave judgment at a video hearing before Employment Judge Ferguson sitting alone.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £4,236.92. It also found that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a compensatory award of £2,100.
The Tribunal further found that the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,702. The holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The total award recorded for recoupment purposes was £8,038.92, with a prescribed element of £2,100 and balance of £5,938.92.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £4,236.92. | Upheld | — | £4,237 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the Claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a compensatory award of £2,100. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,702. | Upheld | — | £1,702 |
| Holiday pay | The claim for holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,039
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,100
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.