Case 2404689/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P M Dill v Sandra Glover and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404689/2024
- Decision date
- 25 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss P M Dill
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the case under Rule 21 and entered judgment for the claimant. It found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondents to pay £23 gross. It also found that Miss Dill had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £276 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £644. In the judgment, that figure was calculated by reference to the claimant's years of service and a gross weekly pay of £23.
The tribunal also found that the respondents had failed to pay the claimant's accrued untaken annual leave entitlement and ordered payment of £92 gross. The total gross sum payable was therefore £1,035, and the hearing listed for 1 April 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 £23. | Upheld | — | £23 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract as to notice and awarded £276 in damages. | Upheld | — | £276 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £644, calculated in the judgment from the claimant's service and weekly pay of £23. | Upheld | — | £644 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondents had failed to pay accrued untaken annual leave entitlement and ordered £92. | Upheld | — | £92 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,035
- 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.