Case 2301132/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Mitchell v Ge-Aet — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301132/2023
- Decision date
- 25 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Mitchell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 12 March 2023 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and the listed hearing on 25 October 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £528.95 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,738.40 gross in damages.
In addition, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,230.77 gross. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,017.12 net.
The total sum awarded was £7,515.24. The judgment does not record any separate award for interest or any other remedy beyond the four monetary components identified above.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages; awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £529 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; awarded damages gross. | Upheld | — | £2,738 |
| Redundancy | Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was found entitled to a redundancy payment; awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £3,231 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement; awarded net. | Upheld | — | £1,017 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,515
- 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.