Case 2305555/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Smyth v Consult Cleaning Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305555/2023
- Decision date
- 11 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Smyth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Smyth presented her claim against consult cleaning limited in the London South Employment Tribunals on 08 October 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge McLaren dealt with the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the papers. The judgment records that the tribunal could properly determine the claim in that way.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £320.00 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement, identified as 14.17 hours at £11.06 per hour, and ordered payment of £156.72 gross. The total awarded was £476.72 gross.
The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any sums owed to HMRC in respect of tax or national insurance contributions. No separate interest, compensation, or other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; the respondent failed to present a valid response on time and the Employment Judge determined the claim on the papers. | Upheld | — | £320 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement of 14.17 hours at £11.06 per hour. | Upheld | — | £157 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £477
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.