Case 2400456/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Mckenna v Christopher Timms — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400456/2022
- Decision date
- 17 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Mckenna
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Phil Allen therefore determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal entered judgment without a contested hearing and cancelled the hearing listed for 17 November 2022.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £486.40 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £178.20 in damages for that claim.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £178.20. The total sum ordered was £842.80, payable within 14 days of the judgment. The accompanying notice stated that interest would apply only if the award was not paid within 14 days, but no separate interest figure was calculated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £486 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for notice pay on the tribunal's finding that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £178 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for failure to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £178 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £843
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.