Case 2403418/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss O Stuart-Cole v Vain Glorious Mcr Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403418/2023
- Decision date
- 11 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss O Stuart-Cole
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal made a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. It determined the claim on the papers and found that Vain Glorious Mcr Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss O Stuart-Cole's wages.
On remedy, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £5,170 for the unlawful deduction from wages. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £480 in damages. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment was £5,650.
The written notice appended to the judgment stated that statutory interest would be payable on awards if not paid within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties, with the relevant decision day given as 11 May 2023, the calculation day as 12 May 2023, and the stipulated rate as 8% per annum. No separate quantified interest figure was set out in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £5,170. | Upheld | — | £5,170 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £480 in damages. | Upheld | — | £480 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,650
- 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.