Case 2305566/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Matthews v EBG (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305566/2023
- Decision date
- 10 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to enter a response. Employment Judge Dyal gave judgment on 10 June 2024 and recorded that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the decision.
The tribunal upheld Mrs P Matthews's claim for a statutory redundancy payment and awarded £6,136.63. It also upheld her claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded £933.34. The judgment does not break the award down further or record any separate compensation, interest, or other remedy components.
The total monetary award identifiable from the judgment is £7,069.97, being the sum of the two successful claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal, acting under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to enter a response, found the claim for a statutory redundancy payment succeeded in the sum of £6,136.63. | Upheld | — | £6,137 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal, acting under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to enter a response, found the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded in the sum of £933.34. | Upheld | — | £933 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,070
- 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.