Case 2402318/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Murphy v Baltic Stone Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402318/2024
- Decision date
- 2 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Liverpool before Employment Judge Shotter sitting alone on 30 July 2024. By consent, Miss A Murphy’s complaint of unlawful deduction of wages succeeded and Baltic Stone Ltd agreed to pay her £3,600 less lawful deductions within 21 days.
The judgment also records that the claimant withdrew her complaint of automatic unfair dismissal brought under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and her claim for accrued unpaid holidays brought under the Wages Act. Each of those withdrawn claims is recorded in the judgment as dismissed.
The written record contains the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that the relevant decision day was 2 August 2024, the calculation day was 3 August 2024, and the stipulated rate was 8% per annum. No separate quantified interest award is set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent; the respondent agreed to pay £3,600 less lawful deductions within 21 days. | Upheld | — | £3,600 |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the claimant withdrew it and the judgment records it as dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued unpaid holidays brought under the Wages Act; the claimant withdrew it and the judgment records it as dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,600
- 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.