Case 2305703/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Russell v Harlequin Civil Engineering Ltd (In compulsory liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305703/2019
- Decision date
- 9 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Russell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs K Russell presented her claim in the London South Employment Tribunals on 28 December 2019. The respondent, Harlequin Civil Engineering Ltd (in compulsory liquidation), failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,416 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,213.33 in damages. In addition, the claimant was found to be entitled to a redundancy payment of £840 and unpaid holiday entitlement of £1,155.
The tribunal recorded that the claims of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal had been withdrawn by the claimant and were dismissed under Rule 52. The total sum payable was £4,624.33.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages; amount stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £1,416 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,213 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment awarded. | Upheld | — | £840 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,155 |
| Sex discrimination | Claim had been withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim had been withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,624
- 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.