Case 2304765/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. E. Broden-Barbareau v Goodfella Beckenham Ltd. (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304765/2022
- Decision date
- 19 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. E. Broden-Barbareau
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing proceeded in the absence of both parties under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure), the Tribunal being satisfied that there was sufficient information available to proceed and that doing so was proportionate. The matter was heard by Judge Callan sitting alone at London South by CVP on 19 January 2024.
On the wages claim, the Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions well-founded in respect of the period 19 August to 15 September 2022. The original sum due of £1,598.50 was reduced by payments of £130 on 10 November 2022 and £100 on 25 November 2022 admitted to have been made by the respondent, leaving a gross sum of £1,368.50 payable to the claimant, who is responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the Tribunal noted the claimant had ticked box 8.1 of the claim form but lacked the necessary qualifying service to bring a complaint under s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and had not particularised a complaint under any other provision within Part X of the Act. The unfair dismissal claim was accordingly struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded for the period 19 August to 15 September 2022. Original sum due of £1,598.50 was reduced by admitted payments of £130 (10/11/2022) and £100 (25/11/2022), leaving £1,368.50 gross payable; claimant responsible for tax and NI. | Upheld | — | £1,369 |
| Unfair dismissal | Claimant lacked the necessary qualifying service to bring a complaint under s.98 ERA 1996 and did not particularise a complaint under any other provision within Part X of the Act. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded for the period 19 August to 15 September 2022. Original sum due of £1,598.50 was reduced by admitted payments of £130 (10/11/2022) and £100 (25/11/2022), leaving £1,368.50 gross payable; claimant responsible for tax and NI. | Upheld | — | £1,369 |
| Unfair dismissal | Claimant lacked the necessary qualifying service to bring a complaint under s.98 ERA 1996 and did not particularise a complaint under any other provision within Part X of the Act. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,369
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure)
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
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.