Case 2400978/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Simms v Funky Owl (DAK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400978/2020
- Decision date
- 3 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Simms
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure Rule 21. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £445.08, gross less lawful deductions of tax and national insurance.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. Remedy for that claim was adjourned to a later hearing.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. That claim was also listed for a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £445.08 gross less lawful deductions of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £445 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with remedy adjourned to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, with remedy listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £445
- across all upheld claims
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.