Case 2305098/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Terrell v Merchmaker Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305098/2019
- Decision date
- 8 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Terrell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent did not present a response within the time allowed. Employment Judge Martin Date recorded that the claimant, Miss L Terrell, succeeded on the papers and that the hearing listed for 31 July 2020 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,833.34. It also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of a further £2,833.34.
In addition, the tribunal found that £2,249.07 of holiday pay remained outstanding on termination of employment. The judgment states that the amount payable was £7,915.75, less £1,700 already paid, leaving £6,215.75 outstanding to be paid to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £2,833.34. | Upheld | — | £2,833 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £2,833.34. | Upheld | — | £2,833 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded £2,249.07 for holiday pay outstanding on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £2,249 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,216
- 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.