Case 2406949/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Woodward v BPS Solicitors Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2406949/2024
- Decision date
- 1 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms M Woodward
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the first respondent (BPS Solicitors Ltd, in creditors voluntary liquidation) from 1 June 2024 to 22 August 2024 on a gross annual salary of £45,000 (gross daily rate £173.08). The respondent did not present a response to the claim, and Employment Judge Ainscough determined the matter under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the information before the Judge, with the Secretary of State making legal submissions.
The Judge found the claims for unauthorised deduction of wages (16 unpaid days), failure to pay statutory notice pay (5 days), and accrued holiday pay (4.43 days) all well founded, and ordered the first respondent to pay the gross sums of £2,769.28, £865.40, and £766.74 respectively.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.13 ERA 1996 for 16 unpaid days at gross daily rate of £173.08. | Upheld | — | £2,769 |
| Breach of contract | Statutory notice pay under s.86 ERA 1996 for 5 day notice period. | Upheld | — | £865 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued holiday pay under reg.14 Working Time Regulations 1998 for 4.43 days. | Upheld | — | £767 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,401
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.