Case 2304782/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Sarah Bonnici v The Foster Partnership Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304782/2019
- Decision date
- 22 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sarah Bonnici
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was given in default under Rule 21 because the Respondent had not presented a response within the stipulated time.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, that the Respondent failed to comply with collective redundancy procedures, that unauthorised deductions from wages had been made, and that unpaid holiday had accrued at the effective date of termination.
The Tribunal also stated that the Claimant was not entitled to compensation for loss of statutory rights because she had not been employed for two years and could not claim unfair dismissal. The total award ordered was £5,481.87.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £219 |
| Redundancy | The judgment describes this as failure to comply with collective redundancy procedures and awards 90 days' pay. | Upheld | — | £3,938 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the claimant was not entitled to compensation for loss of statutory rights because she had not been employed for two years and cannot claim unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,225 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday accrued at the effective date of termination. | Upheld | — | £101 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,482
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21
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.