Case 2400623/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Chadwick v Parkbank Real Estates Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400623/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Chadwick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mrs S Chadwick against Parkbank Real Estates Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £123.08 net.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £615.38 net damages for that claim. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £338.47.
The total sum payable under the judgment was £1,076.93, to be paid within 14 days of the date of the judgment. The separate notice on interest states that sums unpaid after the relevant decision day would carry interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and was ordered to pay the net sum of £123.08. | Upheld | — | £123 |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment: the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and was awarded £615.38 net damages. | Upheld | — | £615 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment: the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay £338.47. | Upheld | — | £338 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,077
- 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.