Case 2407045/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Edge v We Love Dogs Rossendale Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407045/2024
- Decision date
- 1 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Edge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It made a determination on the papers and stated that the awards were gross sums, with a note that the claimant may receive less if statutory deductions are accounted for before payment.
On the wages issue, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £423.04. On the contractual notice issue, it found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and awarded £384 in damages. The combined gross award was therefore £807.04.
The written notice also stated that interest is payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 unless the sum is paid in full within 14 days after the written record of the decision was sent to the parties. It recorded the relevant decision day as 1 May 2025, the calculation day as 2 May 2025, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £423.04. | Upheld | — | £423 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £384. | Upheld | — | £384 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £807
- 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.