Case 2300981/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Chapman v Byron Hayter Holdings Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2300981/2025
- Decision date
- 25 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss E Chapman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the London South Employment Tribunal on 17 January 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Wright determined the claim under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and awarded £3,172.30 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, awarding £1,174.00, and that it had failed to pay the claimant tips, awarding £506.00.
The total award was £4,852.30. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for accounting to HMRC for any sums she owes in respect of the amounts received from the respondent, and the hearing listed for 9 May 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and awarded £3,172.30 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,172 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,174 |
| Other | The judgment found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant tips; the extracted text does not state a more specific legal classification. | Upheld | — | £506 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,852
- 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.