Case 2301672/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Tozer v Hesling Henriques Solicitors — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301672/2020
- Decision date
- 9 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Tozer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Andrews found for the claimant, Miss C Tozer, against Hesling Henriques Solicitors on four monetary claims. The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £2,376.35.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,675. It further found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £3,675.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £256.65. The hearing listed for 22 February 2021 was cancelled. The judgment does not record any separate findings beyond these monetary orders.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £2,376.35. | Upheld | — | £2,376 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,675. | Upheld | — | £3,675 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £3,675. | Upheld | — | £3,675 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £256.65. | Upheld | — | £257 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,983
- 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.