Case 2304826/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Alexander v Basketdrop Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304826/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Alexander
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 15 September 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Wright 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, dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, and failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The respondent was ordered to pay £2,441.25 net for wages, £1,085 for notice damages, and £412.30 for holiday entitlement, making £3,938.55 in total.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay £2441.25 net. | Upheld | — | £2,441 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards £1085 damages. | Upheld | — | £1,085 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £412.30. | Upheld | — | £412 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,939
- 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.