Case 2402631/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Harrison v Hillcrest Finance Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402631/2021
- Decision date
- 28 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Harrison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent did not present a response to the claim. Employment Judge Batten decided the case on the information before the tribunal and found that Hillcrest Finance Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Ms S Harrison the gross sum of £8,250.00. The judgment does not split that figure into separate heads of loss and does not record any separate award for interest or costs.
The accompanying notice explains the tribunal's standard interest position under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It records the relevant judgment day as 28 June 2021, the calculation day as 29 June 2021, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8%, but it does not state any separate quantified interest award in the judgment itself. The listed hearing on 15 October 2021 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the respondent did not present a response. On the information before the Employment Judge, the claimant succeeded on an unauthorised deduction from wages claim and was ordered to be paid the gross sum of £8,250.00. | Upheld | — | £8,250 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,250
- 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.