Case 2405748/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Gardner v CIS Claims Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405748/2023
- Decision date
- 26 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Gardner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Cookson found that CIS Claims Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss Gardner's wages, had dismissed her in breach of contract in respect of notice, and had failed to pay accrued but untaken annual leave entitlement. The tribunal ordered gross sums of £282.25, £1,833.33, and £363.82 respectively, giving a total award of £2,479.40.
The judgment states that the sums are gross and must be paid in full, with Miss Gardner responsible for accounting to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due. The attached interest notice recorded that interest would accrue only if the sums remained unpaid after the relevant decision day, which was 26 September 2023, at 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 £282.25, described as £532.25 minus £250 already paid by the employer. | Upheld | — | £282 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,833.33. | Upheld | — | £1,833 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay accrued but untaken annual leave entitlement and ordered payment of £363.82. | Upheld | — | £364 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,479
- 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.