Case 2402293/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Forster v Valley View Dalton Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402293/2020
- Decision date
- 25 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Forster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the respondent did not participate. The tribunal found that Valley View Dalton Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Ms G Forster's wages by failing to pay her in full for work done, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £563.02.
The tribunal also found a further unlawful deduction from wages in respect of accrued but untaken holiday entitlement, and ordered the respondent to pay £250 gross. In addition, it made an award of £1,100, equivalent to four weeks' pay, under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the claimant had not been given a written statement of employment particulars.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages by not paying the claimant in full for work done. | Upheld | — | £563 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found a further unlawful deduction from wages for failure to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £250 |
| Other | The tribunal awarded an additional sum under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £1,100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,913
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.