Case 2403423/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Barron v Bispham and Cleveleys Kitchens Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403423/2022
- Decision date
- 15 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Barron
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 7 February 2023, before Employment Judge Buzzard sitting alone, the tribunal found that the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim in respect of the final week of her employment to 1 May 2022 was well founded. The respondent was ordered to pay £99.35, described in the judgment as an agreed amount representing one week's statutory sick pay.
The claimant's claim of automatic unfair dismissal was found not well founded and was dismissed. The written record does not set out further reasons for either outcome; it notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The decision record also includes the standard tribunal notice about interest, stating the relevant decision day as 15 February 2023 and the stipulated rate as 8% per annum, but it does not record any separate interest sum as part of the award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim related to the final week of employment to 1 May 2022; award recorded as one week's statutory sick pay. | Upheld | — | £99 |
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment describes this as a claim of automatic unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £99
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £99
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.