Case 2303861/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P White v RDP Construction Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303861/2024
- Decision date
- 14 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P White
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 29 April 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,471.50 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,250 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,375. It also found that holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered payment of £1,575. The tribunal recorded a total sum payable by the respondent of £11,671.50 and noted that the claimant must account to HMRC for any tax owed on sums received pursuant to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £4,472 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages. | Upheld | — | £2,250 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £3,375 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,575 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,672
- 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.