Case 2402651/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Miller Miss L Pawluk v Cath Welch — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402651/2024
- Decision date
- 19 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Miller Miss L Pawluk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Cath Welch, failed to present a valid response on time to either claim. Employment Judge Cookson therefore determined both claims under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
In Miss H Miller's case, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £657. In Miss L Pawluk's case, the tribunal made the same finding and ordered payment of the gross sum of £725.
The written record also included an interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It states that the relevant decision day was 18 October 2024, the calculation day was 19 October 2024, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum if the sums were not paid in full within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Miss H Miller's claim was determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £657 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Miss L Pawluk's claim was determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £725 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,382
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, article 12
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.