Case 2301281/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Z Healy v Florida Direct Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301281/2024
- Decision date
- 23 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Z Healy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 12 January 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £7,663 gross. It further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding damages of £3,076 gross, and that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy, entitling her to a redundancy payment of £1,286.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £12,025 in total. The judgment notes that it is for the claimant to account to HMRC for any sums owed in respect of payments received under the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment; £7,663 gross awarded for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £7,663 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; £3,076 gross damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £3,076 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy; statutory redundancy payment of £1,286 awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,286 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,025
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.