Case 2400957/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Toppon Mrs B Jones Mrs T Graham Ms K Gordon Ms M Harvey Ms N Morris Ms C Gyte Ms D Nichols Mrs M Doyle Ms Jodie Doyle Ms Joanne Doyle v Funky Owl (DAK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400957/2020
- Decision date
- 3 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Toppon Mrs B Jones Mrs T Graham Ms K Gordon Ms M Harvey Ms N Morris Ms C Gyte Ms D Nichols Mrs M Doyle Ms Jodie Doyle Ms Joanne Doyle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made under Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure Rule 21. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimants' wages, and adjourned the claims to a remedy hearing for quantification.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. The respondent was ordered to pay damages for unlawful dismissal, with the amount to be quantified at the remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimants' wages. Remedy was adjourned to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and that damages for unlawful dismissal would be quantified at the remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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.