Case 2406593/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Atkins v EEV management Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406593/2022
- Decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Atkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Dunlop decided under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 that the claim could properly be determined without a valid response.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered payment of £486.33 for non-payment of three weeks in hand and £194.00 for non-payment of six days in March 2022.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £680.86. The written decision included the standard notice that interest would accrue if the award was not paid within 14 days, but it did not calculate an interest sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment made two unauthorised deduction awards: £486.33 for non-payment of three weeks in hand and £194.00 for non-payment of six days in March 2022. | Upheld | — | £680 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment described this as failure to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £681 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,361
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21
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.