Case 2401479/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Donald v Bryncae Legal Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401479/2024
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Donald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge determined the claim under Rule 21. The tribunal then made findings on the claimant’s monetary claims on the papers and entered judgment for the claimant on each head of claim addressed in the decision.
On unlawful deductions from wages, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had not been paid wages for August 2023 to February 2024 in the gross sum of £14,583.03. It deducted payments received totalling £5,141.21 and awarded £9,441.82 gross. The tribunal did not accept the separate claim for employee pension contributions, saying that would amount to double recovery because those sums were already deducted from the gross amounts being awarded.
The tribunal also found the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of one month’s contractual notice. It awarded £706.74 gross, calculated as one month’s gross pay of £2,083.29 less £1,376.55 received during the notice period, made up of earnings and universal credit. The judgment states the award was calculated on a gross basis because of the likelihood of tax liability as Post Employment Notice Pay.
In addition, the tribunal found that accrued but untaken holiday entitlement had not been paid and awarded £384.60 for four days at a gross daily rate of £96.15. It further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,884.56, calculated on the basis stated in the judgment. The total gross sum payable was £13,417.72, and the tribunal noted that the claimant is responsible for any tax liabilities arising from the gross awards. The notice also states that interest is payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the sums are not paid within 14 days, with a relevant decision day of 12 July 2024 and a stipulated rate of 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages were found for unpaid wages from August 2023 to February 2024. The tribunal accepted the calculation of £14,583.03 gross unpaid wages less £5,141.21 received, and rejected the separate claim for employee pension contributions as double recovery. | Upheld | — | £9,442 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of one month’s contractual notice. Damages were calculated as one month’s gross pay less earnings and universal credit received during the notice period, with the award expressed gross because of likely tax liability as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £707 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found accrued but untaken holiday entitlement remained unpaid and awarded four days' holiday pay at the gross daily rate stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £385 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a statutory redundancy payment calculated by reference to one week's pay for each complete year of service while aged between 22 and 41. | Upheld | — | £2,885 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,418
- 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.